Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam 
and  Electric  Locomotives 


By  JOHN  E.  MUHLFELD 
Member 

American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers 
American  Institute  of  Electrical  Engineers 


As  Presented 
Friday,  October  22,  1920 
New  York  City 


At  the  Joint  Meeting  of  the  Railroad,  Metropol- 
itan and  New  York  Sections  of  the  Mechanical 
and  Electrical  Engineering  Societies 


Compliments 

RAILWAY  AND  INDUSTRIAL  ENGINEERS 

INCORPORATED 
25  BROAD  STREET,  NEW  YORK 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/relativeadvantagOOmuhl 


UM3 

M % °l  'T 


INDEX 

c<4 

c 

Pages 

Preface 5-8 

Conclusions 8-11 

Legislation 11 

Financing 12 

Adaptability  to  Existing  Trackage  and  Facilities 12 

Effectiveness  in  Increasing  Track  Capacity 13-15 

Train  Speeds 16-17 

Fuel  Consumption 17-23 

Efficiency  of  Locomotive  Operation 23-29 

Cost  for  Enginemen 29 

Cost  of  Maintenance  , 30 

* 

Peak  Load  Conditions  in  Relation  to  Traffic  Requirements  30-31 

Ease  of  Starting  Trains 31 

Rate  of  Acceleration ' 31 

Train  Braking 31-32 

Effect  of  Weather  Conditions 32-33 

Road  Delays  and  Tie-Ups 33-34 

Terminal  Delays 34 

Hazards 35 

Discussions  and  Editorial  Comments 36-65 


S 


St.  Paul  Articulated  Type  Electric  Locomotive  Described  on  Paj^  1 4 .^Tractive  Power,  Maximum  1 32,500  Lbs. — at  1 5 Miles  per,Hour  71  J300  Lbs. 


Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

By  John  E.  Muhlfeld 

Vice-President,  Railway  and  Industrial  Engineers,  Incorporated 


PREFACE 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  and  Guests: 

1.  I have  the  highest  regard  for  my  colleague,  Mr.  Frank  J. 
Sprague,  who  opened  this  meeting,  not  only  as  a man,  but  as  an 
electrical  engineer  who  has  done  things,  and  I feel  that  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  his  address  at  the  30th  Anniversary  of  the 
Electrical  Exhibition  in  Philadelphia  in  August,  1914,  is  well 
worth  repeating  at  this  time. 

2.  “One  of  the  great  ambitions  of  all  of  us  has  been  to  elec- 
trify the  railroads  of  the  world,  especially  the  trunk  line  rail- 
roads. It  has  been  a common  prophecy  of  electrical  engineers 
that  main  line  railroads  would  be  early  electrified,  and  the  steam 
locomotive  thrown  into  the  discard.  Hopes  have  outpaced  facts, 
for  when  the  gilded  electric  giant — and  gilded  it  must  be  because 
of  the  large  amount  of  capital  required — goes  into  the  arena  to 
meet  its  iron-dad  opponent,  the  modern  steam  locomotive,  on 
the  basis  of  comparative  economy  of  operation  and  capacity,  it 
has  been  a hard  row  to  hoe. 

3.  In  the  urban, suburban,  and  interurban  fields,  and  now  also 
in  terminal  operation,  electricity  holds  its  own,  because  it  deals 
with  classes  of  traffic  often  impossible  for  like  operation  by 
steam ; but  when  we  get  into  the  trunk  line  operated  field  we  must 
then  discard  a great  deal  of  existing  investment,  and  must  incur 
large  investments  at  a time  when  money  is  very  difficult  to  raise.” 

4.  In  prefacing  my  conclusions  and  the  supporting  data  on 
“The  Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric  Loco- 
motives,” and  in  view  of  the  circular  announcing  this  meeting 
being  captioned  “Railroad  Electrification  Night”  I wish  to  refer 
for  the  moment  to  a similar  memorial  that  I presented  at  a meet- 
ing of  the  New  York  Railroad  Club  in  Carnegie  Hall,  on  February 
16,  1906,  on  “Large  Electric  and  Steam  Locomotives.”  That 
paper  was  based,  generally,  on  the  relative  performances  on  The 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  of  two  geared  electric  locomotives, 

5 


each  consisting  of  two  units,  which  operated  through  seven 
tunnels  over  3.4  miles  of  line  ranging  from  0.8  to  1.5%  up-grade, 
with  a ruling  grade  of  % mile  of  1.4  and  1.5  percent  east-bound 
through  Baltimore  City,  and  of  one  Mallet  type  steam  locomotive 
which  operated  over  16V2  miles  of  line  ranging  from  0.5  to  1.0 
percent  up-grade,  with  a ruling  grade  of  6%  miles  of  1.0  percent 
east-bound,  over  the  Allegheny  Mountains.  Both  the  electric  and 
steam  locomotives  were  of  about  the  same  tractive  power  rating, 
built  and  put  into  helper  service  at  about  the  same  time,  and  I 
desire  to  quote  from  that  paper  and  to  again — 14  years  later — 
Reiterate  as  follows : 

5.  “What  the  stock  owners  and  heads  of  railroads  generally 
desire  is  to  originate  and  move  the  greatest  amount  of  business 
possible  with  the  least  cost  to  Capital  and  Operating  Accounts.” 

6.  “The  locomotive  problem  must  be  attacked  from  a com- 
bined Transportation  and  Motive  Power,  and  not  from  an 
Electrical  or  Mechanical  Engineer’s  viewpoint.  There  are  suffi- 
cient locomotives  of  all  kinds  now  under  construction  and  in 
service  on  American  railroads  to  give  correct  data  as  to  what  can 
be  accomplished  under  varying  conditions  by  either  the  electric  or 
steam  method  of  developing  tractive  power,  and  if  unwhite- 
washed reports  of  their  performance  can  be  obtained  it  will  be  of 
invaluable  assistance  to  electrical  and  mechanical  engineers 
generally  in  meeting  the  present  and  future  motive  power 
requirements.” 

7.  “A  steam  locomotive  in  one  section  can  be  designed  and 
placed  under  the  control  of  one  engineer  and  one  fireman  which 
will  economically  develop  as  much  tractive  power  as  may  be 
necessary  to  haul  the  greatest  amount  of  tonnage  that  can  be 
concentrated  in  one  train  of  suitable  size  for  safe  and  quick 
handling  over  a division.” 

8.  “The  advantage  of  the  electric  locomotive  for  the  handling 
of  heavy  tonnage  would  be  from  increasing  the  capacity  of  the 
line,  and  it  might  be  that  the  greater  business  handled  would 
justify  the  increased  cost  for  installation  and  operation  of 
electric  locomotives  as  compared  with  steam  locomotives.” 

9.  During  the  discussion  of  that  paper  some  of  my  electrical 
friends  predicted  quite  vigorously  that  within  five  (5)  years— 
i.e.,  after  1911 — not  a single  order  would  be  placed  in  this 
country  for  steam  locomotives.  In  this  they  were  correct,  as  not 
a single  but  many  orders  have  since  then  been  placed,  the  total 
purchases  for  use  in  the  United  States  during  the  period  1906 
to  1919  inclusive,  being  39,782  steam  locomotives,  of  which 
19,489  have  been  ordered  since  1911.  Furthermore,  since  1906 
the  average  tractive  power  per  steam  locomotive  in  use  in  the 
United  States  has  increased  from  about  24,750  to  35,000  pounds, 
or  over  41  percent. 


6 


10.  That  Mr.  Sprague’s  and  my  own  earlier  conclusions  as 
cited  were  not  radically  wrong  may  be  confirmed  by  what  has 
transpired.  For  example,  the  New  York  “Tribune”  has  recently 
published  a series  of  articles  by  Railroad  Chairman  and  Presi- 
dents, on  problems  confronting  the  Carriers  as  regards  adequate 
transportation  facilities  for  the  future,  in  which  no  reference 
was  made  to  the  necessity  for  any  steam  road  electrification.  Mr. 
Julius  Kruttschnitt  referred  to  the  substitution  of  heavier 
modern  for  light  obsolete  locomotives,  the  elimination  of  every 
pound  of  unnecessary  dead  weight  without  sacrifice  of  strength 
or  safety,  and  the  conservation  of  fuel  by  the  application  of 
improvements  and  the  education  of  employees.  Mr.  A.  H.  Smith 
referred  to  an  electrification  project  for  a city  that  would  cost 
$60,000,000  but  which  would  produce  no  revenue  whatsoever. . 
As  Mr.  Smith  has  had  experience  with  electrification  he  ought  to 
know.  Mr.  F.  D.  Underwood  said  that  “the  average  man  does 
not  realize  what  a wonderful  machine  the  steam  locomotive  is 
“that  the  capital  expenditures  involved  in  changing  from  steam 
to  electric  operation  are  enormous,”  and  that  “but  for  the  notable 
improvements  in  steam  locomotives  which  have  enabled  the  roads 
to  offset  increased  costs,  they  would  have  all  been  bankrupt.” 

11.  In  line  with  the  foregoing,  Mr.  J.  J.  Hill,  a few  years 
before  his  death  stated  that  the  Mallet  type  of  steam  locomotive 
had  set  back  the  time  for  electrification  at  least  fifteen  years,  and 
Mr.  L.  F.  Loree,  who  made  the  Mallet  type  of  locomotive  in  the 
United  States  an  established  fact  and  who  has  done  as  much  as, 
if  not  more  than,  any  other  railroad  executive  to  increase  locomo- 
tive and  freight  car  capacities  and  efficiencies  has  as  yet  been 
unable  to  determine  upon  any  steam  road  divisional  electrifica- 
tion scheme  in  any  part  of  the  country  that  is  justified  as 
compared  with  steam  operation. 

12.  We  all  know  that  the  foregoing  named  executives  and 
railroads  are  representative  of  broad  gauge  policies  and  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  make  improvements — when  money  can  be  pro- 
cured— provided  the  expenditures  will  produce  a proper  rate  of 
return  in  operating  efficiency  and  economy  in  addition  to  the 
carrying  charges. 

13.  From  1903  to  1917  every  mountain  pass  controlled  by 
the  Harriman  lines — and  two  that  were  studied  in  reconnoissance 
— were  investigated  for  electrification  but  in  no  case  did  the 
operating  results  justify  the  same  as  compared  with  steam 

operation. 

14.  In  the  1913  transactions  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Electrical  Engineers,  pages  1845-1875,  a paper  on  the  subject  of 
“Mountain  Railway  Electrification”  by  Mr.  Allen  H.  Babcock, 
Electrical  Engineer  of  the  Southern  Pacific,  which  related  to  the 

7 


proposed  electrification  of  a district  of  that  line  which  included 
38  miles  of  2.4  percent  ruling  grade  between  Bakersfield  and 
Mojave,  California,  was  published  in  full  detail,  and  further  the 
paper  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  engineers  of  two  large 
electric  locomotive  manufacturers  in  this  country  with  instruc- 
tions to  “tear  it  to  pieces.”  With  one  exception,  and  which  was 
a criticism  directed  to  the  point  of  view  taken,  rather  than  to  the 
facts,  by  Mr.  H.  M.  Hobart,  of  the  General  Electric  Company, 
(pages  1256-1260  in  the  transactions  referred  to)  no  criticism 
was  made  of  Mr.  Babcock’s  conclusion — which  was  that  elec- 
trification was  not  justified. 

15.  Similarly,  in  a report  made  in  January,  1914,  by  Mr.  J. 
P.  Ripley,  of  the  J.  G.  White  Management  Corporation,  on  the 
possibilities  from  the  electrification  of  23  miles  of  double  track 
line  of  the  Santa  Fe  between  Trinidad,  Col.,  and  Raton,  New 
Mexico,  covering  ruling  grades  of  from  3.32  to  3.5  percent  and 
10  degree  curvature,  over  Raton  Mountain  summit,  and  at  which 
time  both  the  use  of  coke  oven  gas  at  two  cents  per  1000  cu.  feet 
delivered  at  the  railway’s  power  plant,  and  of  purchased  power 
were  considered,  electrification  was  not  justified  due  to  the 
relatively  small  average  amount  of  traffic  as  compared  with  the 
tonnage  to  be  moved  at  periods  of  great  traffic  density  and  on 
account  of  the  savings  in  operation  not  even  equalling  the  fixed 
charge  brought  about  by  electrification. 

16.  In  line  with  the  foregoing,  several  years  ago  a report 
was  made  on  the  advisability  of  electrifying  about  275  miles,  or 
a division,  of  one  of  the  more  prominent  western  lines,  and  an 
erroneous  comparison  was  made,  first,  between  the  existing 
antiquated  and  uneconomical  steam  and  an  up-to-date  electric 
operation;  and  second,  by  omitting  the  investment  required  to 
bring  the  steam  operation  up  to  date.  When  all  involved  factors 
were  properly  adjusted  the  net  capital  expenditure  of  $4,000,000 
required  for  electrification  compared  with  $1,000,000  as  needed 
for  modernizing  the  steam  equipment,  and  the  estimated  annual 
operating  saving  of  approximately  $750,000  from  electrification 
was  wiped  out  and  replaced  by  a saving  of  $250,000  from  a 
continuation  of  the  improved  steam  operation. 

17.  The  foregoing  are  only  a few  cases  where  steam  railway 
electrification  projects  that  were  thought  to  be  entirely  feasible, 
were,  upon  serious  investigation,  found  not  to  be  justified  and 
indicate  the  caution  that  must  be  exercised  in  analyzing  steam 
railroad  motive  power  and  transportation  problems. 

CONCLUSIONS 

18.  The  Federal  Control  and  Guaranty  periods  of  the  steam 
railroads  of  the  country  ended  on  February  28th  and  August 
31st  last,  respectively,  and  these  properties  are  again  in  the 


8 


hands  of  their  owners  and  under  the  direction  of  the  Transpor- 
tation Act  and  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

19.  Today,  in  consideration  of  the  existing  traffic  rates  and 
regulations  as  established  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, and  the  wages  and  working  conditions  as  recommended 
by  the  Railroad  Labor  Board,  it  is  assumed  that  the  railroads  as 
a whole  will  average  net  operating  earnings  equal  to  6 percent 
on  their  valuation  as  fixed  from  time  to  time  by  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission.  Some  railroads  may  earn  more  and 
some  will  earn  less,  but  in  the  case  of  every  line  the  minimum 
fixed  charge  and  the  maximum  operating  and  maintenance 
economy  will  be  required  if  the  stock  owners  are  to  receive  even 
a reasonable  return  on  their  investments. 

20.  In  the  protection  and  control  of  railroad  net  earnings 
one  of  the  most  important  factors  is  the  kind  of  motive  power 
to  be  used,  and  unfortunately,  in  making  comparisons  of  the 
relative  values  of  steam  and  electric  railway  power,  some  of  the 
electrical  engineers  have  frequently  given  out  such  an  attractive 
and  confident  line  of  loose  figures  that  railway  managers  and 
their  engineers  have  often  been  misled  into  making  recommenda- 
tions that  have  later  resulted  in  embarrassment.  In  fact, 
references  can  be  made  to  figures  set  forth  in  some  of  the  leading 
technical  journals  during  the  past  year  that  would  properly  be 
classified  as  a “bunch  of  bull”  by  competent  engineers  who  have 
been  in  active  railway  service  and  seen  any  considerable  steam 
and  electric  locomotive  performances.  For  example,  comparisons 
have  been  made;  between  the  operations  of  new  up-to-date 
electric  and  of  obsolete  steam  installations;  of  costs  of  repairs 
per  locomotive  mile  for  electric  and  steam  locomotives  of  different 
dates  built  new,  and  of  different  average  ages ; and  of  fuel  rates 
at  the  sub-stations  of  modern  central  power  stations  with  fuel 
rates  of  obsolete  steam  locomotives,  per  horsepower  hour.  Also 
assumptions  have  been  made  of  extraordinary  steam  locomotive 
standby  fuel  losses;  inclusion  of  steam  locomotive  tender,  but 
exclusion  of  electric  locomotive  non-adhesive  weight  as  non- 
revenue train  tonnage;  and  of  like  erroneous  factors.  It  is  just 
as  misleading  to  use  as  a basis  for  comparison  the  present  most 
efficient  electric  locomotive  operation  on  the  St.  Paul  and  that 
of  its  saturated  steam  locomotives  of  1910,  as  it  would  be  to 
compare  the  present  most  efficient  superheated  steam  locomotive 
performance  on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  with  its  electric 
operation. 

21.  When  we  discuss  or  recommend  the  further  electrifica- 
tion of  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  260,000  miles  of  steam 
operated  railroad  system  in  the  United  States,  which  is  now 
making  use  of  about  65,000  steam  and  375  electric  locomotives 
for  its  passenger,  freight  and  terminal  service,  the  most 
important  item  involved  is  a correct  and  complete  statement  of 

9 


facts,  comparing  the  most  up-to-date  steam  with  similar  electric 
operations,  after  which  immediately  come  the  important  factors 
of  the  necessary  financing  and  legislation. 

22.  To  reflect  initial  and  operating  costs  from  a credit  or  an 
investment  standpoint  and  to  interpret  faithfully  on  the  basis 
of  expert  judgment  backed  by  practical  experience,  the  probable 
effect  on  the  annual  balance  sheet,  any  investigation  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  upon  the  advisability  of  electrical  or 
steam  operation  for  an  existing  or  new  line  of  railroad  should  be 
made,  preferably  by  a committee  consisting  of  experts  in  railway 
mechanical,  electrical  and  civil  engineering,  transportation,  and 
accounting,  without  an  endeavor  to  modify  the  best  steam  rail- 
roading methods  to  suit  the  requirements  of  electric  traction,  and 
by  keeping  clearly  in  mind  the  fundamental  fact  that  while 
anything  within  reason  is  possible,  provided  enough  money  can 
be  spent,  if  the  Auditor’s  annual  statement  cannot  show  the 
balance  on  the  right  side  of  the  ledger  the  project  will  have  failed 
from  the  most  important  point  of  view. 

23.  While  there  is  much  existing  steam  road  trackage  that 
can  and  should  receive  first  consideration  as  regards  electrifica- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  eliminating  gases  from  underground 
terminals  and  tunnels,  to  give  relief  to  terminal  or  line  traffic 
congestion  by  combined  rapidity  and  frequency  of  train  move- 
ment in  the  vicinity  of  large  commercial  and  industrial  centers, 
or  where  transportation  operations  are  auxiliary  to  mining  or 
other  industries  requiring  the  extensive  use  of  electricity,  it 
would  be  financial  suicide  to  electrify  immediately  adjacent 
connecting  and  intermediate  long  haul  mileage,  particularly  in 
view  of  the  improvements  that  can  be  made  in  both  existing  and 
new  steam  locomotives  in  the  matter  of  reducing  smoke,  sparks, 
cinders  and  noise  and  in  increasing  general  capacity,  efficiency 
and  economy  in  operation  and  maintenance.  Without  a doubt  the 
advent  of  the  electric  locomotive  has  awakened  the  mechanical 
engineer,  and  the  competition  it  has  brought  about  has  been  one  of 
the  greatest  factors  in  promoting  the  progress  that  is  now  being 
made  in  steam  locomotive  efficiency  and  economy.  At  the  same 
time  the  electric  heavy  traction  engineers  have  a wide  field  for  the 
introduction  of  electrification  on  steam  lines  penetrating  long  tun- 
nels, in  busy  city  terminals,  in  dense  passenger  traffic  zones,  and 
for  suburban  traffic  where  the  by-products  of  combustion  are 
undesirable.  Also  on  congested  heavy  mountain  grade  lines  where 
adequate  and  cheap  hydro-electric  current  may  make  electrification 
justifiable. 

24.  With  the  decreased  value  of  gold  and  purchasing  power 
of  the  dollar  has  come  an  increase  of  from  4 and  5,  to  7 and  8 
percent  in  the  cost  for  money,  which,  in  combination  with  the 
100  to  150  percent  increase  in  the  cost  for  labor  and  material 
makes  the  procurement  today  of  the  most  pressing  railroad 

10 


capital  needs  almost  prohibitive.  Therefore,  when  engineers 
and  politicians  propose  reckless  super-power  plans  for  the  electri- 
fying even  of  such  belts  of  steam  roads  as  lie  in  the  densely 
populated  district  between  Washington,  D.C.,  and  Boston,  at  a 
new  capital  cost  to  the  railroads  approximating  a billion  of 
dollars,  and  in  addition  mark  off  the  books  the  principal  value  of 
existing  steam  locomotives,  passenger  cars,  shops,  and  terminal 
and  intermediate  facilities  that  would  be  unsuitable  for  the 
electrified  service,  they  are  planning  either  a new  road  to  railroad 
bankruptcy,  or  a further  burden  in  traveling  and  shipping  costs, 
or  in  taxes,  which  would  be  representative  of  criminal  waste 
instead  of  increased  earning  capacity  by  means  of  more  efficient 
and  economical  operation. 

25.  Furthermore,  before  the  electric  locomotive  can  be  made 
permissible  for  general  application  the  electrical  engineer  must 
reduce  his  first  costs;  promote  interchangeability;  provide  a 
motor  which  will  efficiently,  economically  and  flexibly  cover  a 
wide  range  of  speeds  and  not  break  down  or  deteriorate  from 
overloading  and  heating;  reduce  complication,  wear  and  cor- 
rosion in  transmission  and  contact  line  apparatus ; and 
substantially  reduce  the  current  losses  and  the  liability  for  failure 
between  the  point'  of  power  production  and  the  locomotive 
drawbar.  Likewise  the  steam  railway  mechanical  engineers, 
locomotive  builders  and  specialty  manufacturers,  if  they  are  to 
guard  the  steam  locomotive  and  continue  it  in  its  present  field 
of  usefulness,  must  become  more  active  in  modernization  and 
bring  about  improvements  that  will  substantially  increase  its 
capacity  and  thermal  efficiency  by  the  use  of  higher  steam  pres- 
sures and  superheat;  compounding;  more  efficient  methods  of 
combustion ; utilization  of  waste  exhaust  steam  and  products  of 
combustion  heat ; better  distribution  and  use  of  live  steam ; reduc- 
tion of  dynamic  weights ; greater  percentage  of  adhesive  to  total 
weight  and  a lower  factor  of  adhesion;  and  by  a substantial 
reduction  in  standby. 

26.  As  both  steam  and  electric  locomotives  should  have  a 
useful  life  of  from  25  to  50  years  from  the  date  built  these 
policies  should  be  inaugurated  now  by  the  railroad  executives 
in  order  that  the  least  artificial  age  will  be  capitalized  in  all  new 
built  motive  power. 

27.  In  order  to  determine  the  relative  advantages  of  modern 
steam  and  electric  locomotives  the  following  may  be  stated  as 
important  items  for  consideration : 


Legislation 

28.  This  may  be  of  such  varied  character  that  any  assump- 
tions for  analyses  purposes  are  out  of  the  question. 


11 


Financing 

29.  The  electrification  of  the  steam  roads  in  the  United 
States  since  1895  now  embraces  about  1250  road  miles  on  18 
different  lines  and  375  electric  locomotives,  of  which  total  about 
375  road  miles  on  nine  different  lines  and  230  locomotives  (as 
well  as  1000  motor  cars)  are  located  in  the  territory  between 
Washington,  D.C.,  and  Boston. 

30.  In  view  of  past  experience  probably  little  if  any  finan- 
cing of  steam  road  electrification  projects  in  the  United  States 
can  be  undertaken,  particularly  at  present  interest  on  money 
and  labor  and  material  prices,  unless  the  returns  are  more 
adequately  and  fully  guaranteed.  In  fact,  few  if  any  existing 
steam  roads  can  justify  or  stand  the  additional  capital  investment 
required  per  mile  of  road  for  electrification,  except  for  short 
distances  under  very  special  conditions  such  as  prevailed  on  the 
Norfolk  and  Western,  where  the  ventilation  and  1.5  percent 
grade  line  features  of  a five-eighths  mile  single  track  tunnel 
restricted  the  train  movements  to  a 6 mile  per  hour  basis  on  a 
congested  traffic  section  of  the  main  line,  and  even  then  only 
providing  the  fixed  charges  and  operating  expenses  are  not  too 
excessive. 

31.  The  immediate  requirements  of  new  money  for  the  more 
urgent  steam  equipment  and  facilities  needed  to  provide 
adequate,  safe  and  expeditious  rather  than  luxurious  service  in 
the  regeneration  of  the  railroads,  is  the  obvious  reason  for  the 
continued  utilization  of  the  over-all  more  economical  steam  oper- 
ation, and  only  after  the  possibilities  in  this  direction  have  been 
realized  can  any  serious  financial  consideration  be  given  to  the 
proposed  radical  change  to  super-electrification. 

Adaptability  to  Existing  Trackage  and  Facilities 

32.  First  and  foremost  in  the  advantages  of  a continuation 
of  the  existing  improved  steam  locomotive  for  all  purposes  for 
which  it  is  permissible,  is  its  flexibility  and  adaptability  to 
existing  railroad  trackage  and  terminal  and  operating  facilities, 
and  the  relatively  low  first  cost  at  which  it  can  be  purchased  per 
unit  of  power  developed  for  the  movement  of  traffic.  Being  a 
self-contained  mobile  power  plant,  it  is  possible  to  quickly  trans- 
fer needed  or  surplus  power  from  one  part  of  the  line  to  another 
and  to  concentrate  it  when  and  where  necessary,  whereas  with 
the  electric  locomotive  this  is  impossible  unless  electrification 
extends  over  the  entire  property  or  the  sources  of  power  supply 
have  almost  prohibitive  peak  load  capacity.  Furthermore,  the 
various  systems  of  electrification  do  not  make  the  interchanging 
of  electric  locomotives  practicable  without  much  non-productive 
first-cost,  complication,  and  maintenance  and  operating  expense. 

12 


Effectiveness  in  Increasing  Track  Capacity. 

33.  Without  a doubt  electrification  increases  the  capacity  of 
a terminal  and  this  is  fully  evidenced  by  the  intensified  traffic 
movements  at  Grand  Central  Station  in  New  York,  and  at  Broad 
Street  Station  in  Philadelphia,  but  an  analysis  of  the  situation 
on  the  New  York  Central  shows  that  this  is  not  due  to  decreasing 
locomotive  movements  through  the  use  of  multiple  units  as  is 
usually  stated.  For  example,  through  line  passenger  trains  are 
handled  in  and  out  of  Harmon  with  single  steam  the  same  as  with 
single  electric  locomotives,  and  as  regards  commutation  service, 
this  is  largely  a motor  car  proposition,  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  as  compared  with  73  electric  locomotives  the  New  York 
Central  has  241  motor  cars  and  no  trailers. 

34.  As  already  set  forth,  special  line  conditions,  as  on  the 
Norfolk  and  Western,  may  make  electrification  advisable  for 
short  distances,  but  neither  the  results  on  that  road  nor  at  the 
New  York  terminals  justify  the  frequent  reference  by  electrical 
engineers  to  the  weakness  of  steam  locomotive  haulage  during 
the  unprecedented  cold  weather  and  volume  of  traffic  conditions 
during  the  winters  of  1917-18,  in  that  electrification  would  not 
have  obviated  the  difficulty.  If  so,  then  why  did  the  New  Haven 
not  operate  at  100  percent  of  its  capacity,  over  its  electrified  zone 
at  that  time?  If  short  of  locomotives  or  motor  cars  the  New 
York  Central  had  plenty  of  surplus  that  was  not  in  use  and 
which  could  not  be  utilized  outside  of  its  own  electric  zone  on 
lines  where  it  was  badly  needed.  The  probable  answer  is  lack 
of  interchangeability  which  is  still  one  of  the  most  discouraging 
operating  factors  involved  in  any  electrification  scheme  and  was 
fully  brought  out  in  the  last  report  of  the  A.R.A.  Committee 
on  Design,  Maintenance  and  Operation  of  Electric  Rolling  Stock 
wherein  the  wide  variation  of  current  generating,  transmitting, 
distributing  and  contact  systems,  voltages,  types  of  locomotives 
and  of  general  ideas  relating  to  the  same  sets  forth  the  present 
undeveloped  state  of  the  art. 

35.  Furthermore,  in  the  handling  of  heavy  tonnage  trains 
by  the  unlimited  combining  of  electric  locomotive  units,  the 
factors  of  peak  load,  transmission  lines,  and  power  plant  capacity 
must  all  be  considered  with  the  probability  that  permissible 
modern  steam  locomotive  train  units  can  be  more  economically 
handled  over  dense  traffic  lines  than  the  electric  multiple  unit 
super-trains.  Although  under  the  multiple  unit  system  of  loco- 
motive and  train  operation  it  is  theoretically  possible  to  provide 
unlimited  sustained  hauling  capacity,  at  the  head  of  the  train, 
the  tonnage  to  be  handled  without  rear  end  or  intermediate 
helpers  is  limited  by  the  ability  of  the  draft  rigging  on  the  cars 
to  withstand  the  pull  and  shock,  and  this  limitation  can  be  readily 
met  and  exceeded  in  steam  locomotive  design  and  operation,  as 


13 


may  be  noted  from  the  following  comparison  of  the  St.  Paul 
electric  freight  and  the  Virginian  steam  freight  articulated 
types  of  locomotives  as  shown  in  Table  I. 

TABLE  I 


ITEM 

St.  Paul 
Electric 
Articulated 

Virginian 

Steam 

Articulated 

1 Tractive  power,  in  simple  gear,  maximum .... 

132,500  lbs 

176,600  lbs 

2 “ “ , “ compound  gear,  “ .... 

3 “ “ , at  15  miles  per  hour 

147,200  “ 

71,000  “ 

108,000  “ 

4 Wheel  arrangement,  (excluding  tender) 

4-8-8-4 

2-10-10-2 

5 Length  over  all,  (including  tender) 

112  ft 

107  ft 

6 Total  wheel  base,  (including  tender) 

102'  8" 

97'  0" 

7 Driving  wheel  base 

75'  0" 

64'  3" 

8 Rigid  wheel  base 

10'  6" 

19'  10" 

9 Total  weight  on  driving  wheels 

448,000  lbs 

617,000  lbs 

10  “ “ “ truck  wheels 

116,000  “ 

67,000  “ 

11  “ “ of  tender  (with  Yi  fuel  and 

water  capacity) 

148,000  “ 

12  “ “ of  locomotive 

564,000  “ 

832,000  “ 

13  Truck  wheels — Total  No 

8 

4 

14  Driving  “ — Total  No 

15  “ “ — Diameter 

16 

20 

52" 

56" 

16  “ “ — Adhesive  weight  to  total 

79.4% 

90% 

17  “ “ — “ “ per  axle, 

average. . . 

56,000  “ 

61,700  “ 

18  “ “ — Unsprung  weight  per  axle, 

average. . . 

16,250  “ 

12,000  “ 

19  Factor  of  adhesion — Maximum  tractive  effort. 

3.38 

3.49 

20  “ “ “ — Tractive  effort  at  15  MPH 

6.31 

5.70 

Electricity 

Superheated 

from 

steam  from 

21  Source  of  Power 

• outside 

self-contain- 

hydro-elec- 

ed Boiler 

tric  plant 

Plant 

Note — Item  16  indicates  percentage  of  driving  wheel  adhesive  weight  to 
total  of  engine.  When  tender  is  added  this  figure  would  be  74  per  cent  for 
Virginian  steam  locomotive. 

36.  In  a recent  published  comparison  of  Electric  and  Steam 
Motive  Power  a 100  car  5,000  gross  ton  freight  train  east-bound 
at  Thelma,  on  a 0.33  percent  average  grade  on  the  St.  Paul, 
behind  one  of  its  electric  locomotives,  was  featured,  and  the 
following  is  quoted:  “Further  instances  could  be  cited  where 
the  benefits  of  electrification  are  badly  needed  and  many  of  these 
are  coal  carrying  roads,  among  which  the  Virginian  Railway 
stands  out  conspicuously  as  a good  opportunity  to  make  both  a 
necessary  improvement  and  a sound  investment.” 

37.  In  connection  with  the  foregoing  it  may  be  stated  that 
on  the  Virginian  on  October  8,  1909,  a saturated  steam  Mikado 
locomotive,  No.  430,  of  about  50,000  pounds  tractive  power 
rating,  hauled  from  Victoria  depot  to  Sewalhs  Point,  a distance 
of  127.1  miles,  against  a 0.2  percent  average  gradient,  100 

14 


standard  cars  of  coal  and  caboose  weighing  7.580  gross,  and 
5,892  net  tons  of  trailing  load,  in  8 hours-42  minutes,  with  13.1 
net  tons  of  coal  fired,  or  less  than  27.2  pounds  of  coal  per  1,000 
gross  ton  miles. 

38.  Furthermore,  the  Virginian  steam  Mallets  as  described 
in  connection  with  the  St.  Paul  Electric  locomotive  on  page  14 
operate  between  Elmore  and  Clark's  Gap,  over  about  13.5  miles 
of  2.07  percent  compensated  grade  and  through  5 tunnels  ranging 
from  325  to  1253  feet  in  length,  and  can  haul,  without  helper 
assistance,  40  cars  of  coal  and  caboose  weighing  3160  gross  and 
2200  net  tons  of  trailing  load,  in  1 hour-15  minutes,  with  8.2 
net  tons  of  coal  fired  on  384  pounds  of  coal  per  1000  gross  ton 
miles. 


39.  Electrification  was  established  on  the  St.  Paul  during 
December,  1915,  and  the  comparisons  with  the  Virginian,  shown 
in  Table  II,  as  to  annual  operating  results  obtained,  are  of  inter- 
est, and  from  which  it  would  appear  that  the  St.  Paul  electrifica- 
tion has  produced  no  benefit,  and  that  the  Virginian  steam 
operation  is  a very  satisfactory  one,  so  far  as  the  public  and  the 
stock  owners  are  concerned : 


TABLE  II 


1919 

1918 

1917 

1916 

1915 

1914 

1913 

1912 

1911 

1910 

| 554 

536 

468 

425 

390 

380 

357 

288 

275 

276 

| .92 

OO 

.76 

.76 

.78 

.81 

.79 

.84 

.84 

.84 

J92.15 

92.0 

74.9 

65.5 

67.8 

67.0 

66.8 

75.6 

72.4 

69.1 

1712 

1483 

1508 

1578 

1469 

1410 

1111 

1049 

1132 

809 

.49 

.42 

.36 

.34 

OO 

CO 

.34 

.35 

.36 

.43 

J 76.0 

77.9 

57.7 

52.0 

58.0 

55.0 

57.7 

61.4 

59.3 

69.5 

Year 


St.  Paul 


Average  Freight 
Train  Load 
(Tons) 

Average  Rate 
Received  per 
Freight  Ton  Mile 
(Cents) 

Operating  Ratio- 
Per  cent  Operating 
Expenses  to  Gross 
. Operating  Revenue 


Virginian 


Average  Freight 
Train  Load 
(Tons) 

Average  Rate 
Received  per 
Freight  Ton  Mile 
(Cents) 

Operating  Ratio — 
Per  cent  Operating 
Expenses  to  Gross 
Operating  Revenue 


15 


Train  Speeds 


40.  The  average  freight  car  is  in  main  line  movement  only 
about  10  percent  of  its  life,  or  2 hours  and  24  minutes  out  of 
each  24  hours.  The  balance  of  its  time  can  be  distributed  55 
percent  in  the  hands  of  the  railroads  on  account  of  interchanges, 
yard  and  loading  and  unloading  track  movements,  surplus  cars, 
repair  tracks  and  road  delays,  and  35  percent  in  the  hands  of 
the  shipper  and  consignee,  due  to  loading  and  unloading  recon- 
signment and  Sundays  and  holidays.  Therefore,  increasing  train 
speeds  beyond  established  economic  limits  at  the  sacrifice  of 
tonnage,  and  with  an  increase  in  power  fuel,  track  and  equip- 
ment upkeep  and  danger  of  operation  is  not  the  solution  of  the 
freight  traffic  problem.  For  example,  an  increase  of  50  percent 
over  and  above  the  established  economic  freight  train  speeds 
would  be  only  72  minutes  of  the  daily  life  of  each  freight  car, 
whereas  capital  expenditures  applied  to  the  reduction  of  those 
delays  which  now  involve  over  21 1/2  hours  per  day,  or  about  90 
percent  of  the  life  of  the  car,  would  give  much  more  effective  and 
economical  results. 

41.  As  the  electric  locomotive  is  a constant  speed  proposi- 
tion, whether  going  up  or  down  grade,  and  is  unable  to  utilize 
its  rated  capacity  and  effectiveness  through  the  same  range  of 
speed  and  tractive  power  variations  as  the  more  flexible  steam 
locomotive,  the  latter  can  therefore  be  more  efficiently  operated 
over  the  continually  changing  up  and  down  grades,  levels,  curves 
and  tangents  traversed  by  the  average  freight  train  in  this 
country. 

42.  With  respect  to  passenger  train  service,  where  speed 
is  more  of  a factor,  the  steam  locomotive  performs  equally 
satisfactory.  For  example,  on  the  main  line  of  The  Baltimore 
and  Ohio,  for  a distance  of  17  miles  between  Piedmont,  West 
Virginia,  and  Altamont,  Maryland,  the  average  gradient  is  2.2 
percent.  A single  Pacific  type  locomotive  with  a tractive  power 
of  43,400  pounds  will  haul  up  this  grade,  without  helper,  in  50 
minutes'  time,  or  at  an  average  speed  of  20  miles  per  hour,  a 
passenger  train  consisting  of  nine  cars  weighing  620  tons  with- 
out, and  830  tons  with  locomotive.  The  same  train  will  make  the 
trip  down  grade  in  35  minutes,  or  at  an  average  speed  of  28V2 
miles  per  hour.  The  average  total  weight  of  engine  and  tender 
of  these  Pacifies  is  210  tons,  which  may  be  compared  with  a 
total  weight  of  265  tons  for  the  St.  Paul  electric  locomotives 
which  are  used  to  handle  similar  passenger  trains  up  17  miles  of 
2.2  percent  grade  from  the  Columbia  River  west  at  an  average 
speed  of  25  miles  per  hour. 

43.  When  it  comes  to  excessive  and  expensive  passenger 
train  speeds  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  discontinued  18- 

16 


hour  trains  on  the  New  York  Central  and  the  Pennsylvania 
between  New  York  and  Chicago,  to  the  Philadelphia- Atlantic 
City  service  on  the  Reading,  and  to  the  run  made  in  May,  1893, 
when  engine  No.  999  in  charge  of  Engineer  Charlie  Hogan,  on 
the  Empire  State  Express,  covered  a mile  in  32  seconds,  or  at  the 
rated  speed  of  112 1/2  miles  per  hour,  which  is  a pattern  for  the 
electrical  engineer  to  work  to.  In  fact,  it  would  be  interesting  to 
see  one  of  the  new  Centipede,  bi-polar,  gearless  type  of  St.  Paul 
passenger  locomotives,  with  its  12  pairs  of  44  inch  diameter 
driving,  and  two  pairs  of  guiding  wheels  with  extremely  low 
centre  of  gravity  for  unsprung  weight,  operate  at  such  speed  or 
even  at  speeds  of  from  70  to  85  miles  per  hour,  which  are  daily 
being  made  by  large  steam  Pacific  type  passenger  locomotives 
on  various  roads  throughout  the  country. 


Fuel  Consumption. 

44.  Great  economy  in  fuel  consumption  and  cost  is  the 
principal  claim  for  electrification  and  ever  since  the  Presidential 
address  at  the  A.I.E.E.  Convention  held  in  New  York  on  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1918,  the  guardians  of  the  steam  railroads  have  been 
“fed  up”  on  the  theory  that  it  would  be  possible  to  save  at  least 
two-thirds  of  the  coal  consumed,  by  the  then  existing  steam 
locomotives  and  that  the  useful  carrying  capacity  of  existing 
trackage  could  be  increased  about  10  percent  by  the  elim- 
ination of  company  coal  movement,  if  electric  locomotives 
were  substituted.  In  fact,  eminent  electrical  engineers  have 
recently  arrived  at  the  startling  conclusion  that  had  the  railroads 
of  the  United  States,  using  63,000  steam  locomotives,  been 
completely  electrified  in  1918  along  lines  fully  tried  out  and 
proved  successful  today,  they  would  have  required,  without  the 
use  of  any  water  or  other  power,  only  53,500,000,  instead  of 
176,000,000  tons  of  coal  or  its  equivalent,  thereby  effecting  a 
modest  saving  of  more  than  two-thirds,  or  122,500,000  tons. 

45.  The  basis  for  arriving  at  these  comparative  figures  is 
so  obviously  ridiculous  that  they  warrant  comment  only  for  the 
reason  of  the  general  publicity  given.  For  example,  facts  as 
taken  from  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  Statistics  of 
Railways  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  ended  December  31, 
1918,  are  that  a total  of  3,615,697  tons  of  anthracite  and  134,- 
214,480  tons  of  bituminous  coal,  1,638,956,953  gallons  of  oil  and 
72,447  cords  of  hard  and  182,267  cords  of  soft  wood  were  con- 
sumed by  about  63,531  steam  locomotives  averaging  34,995 
pounds  tractive  power  each.  This  total  coal,  oil  and  wood  is 
equivalent  to  about  149,106,901  tons  of  coal,  and  it  cost  about 
$500,225,205.00  delivered  on  the  locomotive  tenders.  These  au- 
thoritative figures  immediately  reduce  the  average  of  2793  tons 
as  stated  by  the  electrical  engineers,  to  an  average  of  2347  tons, 
as  actually  charged  and  used  per  locomotive,  during  the  year, 

17 


and  show  an  erroneous  over-statement  of  a total  of  28,334,726 
tons,  or  an  average  of  446  tons  of  coal  equivalent,  per  locomotive, 
per  year,  or  a decrease  of  19  percent  in  the  stated  fuel  consump- 
tion that  electrification  would  in  no  wise  affect. 

46.  Again  for  the  steam  operation  a coal  rate  of  12.75 
pounds  per  kilowatt-hour  of  useful  work  done,  as  measured  at 
the  driving  wheel  treads,  (just  how  this  was  computed  is  not 
understood)  or  seven  pounds  per  kilowatt-hour  (including  trans- 
mission and  conversion  losses  inherent  in  electrical  operation) 
as  measured  at  a central  power  station,  was  based  on  some  tests 
made  in  1910  on  the  St.  Paul  of  some  probably  long  since  anti- 
quated types  of  saturated  steam  locomotives.  Then  for  the  elec- 
trical operation  a modernized  central  power  station  coal  rate  of 
2*4  pounds  per  kilowatt-hour  in  combination  with  a 40  watt 
hour  rate  at  the  point  of  delivery  of  the  power  to  the  railroad 
system  for  moving  a gross  ton  mile  of  passenger  and  freight 
train  was  used,  which  would  produce  a movement  of  1,000 
average  gross  ton  miles  for  100  pounds  of  coal  of  about  12,000 
BTU  value  per  pound  as  fired.  Tn  arriving  at  these  data  ap- 
parently factors  were  overlooked  or  disregarded  such  as ; gradi- 
ent and  curvature ; drifting  train  mileage ; human  element ; the 
necessity  for  hauling  one-third  of  the  freight  car  miles  without 
lading  and  its  effect  on  train  resistance ; the  necessity  for  from 
4 to  5 percent  light  locomotive  mileage  in  order  to  meet  traffic 
movement  requirements  with  no  trailing  tonnage  whatsoever  as 
a divisor  into  the  fuel  or  current  used ; the  use  of  15,000  loco- 
motives in  switching  and  transfer  service;  the  existence  of 

25.000  steam  locomotives  equipped  with  superheaters  and  of 

35.000  equipped  with  firebrick  baffle  walls;  the  past  ten  years’ 
improvement  in  steam  locomotive  boilers  and  machinery;  that 
electrification  will  not  eliminate  the  rail  haulage  of  company 
coal  or  of  dead  weight  on  locomotive  leading  and  trailing  truck 
wheels;  that  large  central  power  stations  will  only  show  a fuel 
saving  when  operated  somewhere  near  their  rated  capacity  with- 
out peak  load  conditions  ; that  the  inter-connecting  of  electrifica- 
tion systems  will  result  in  prohibitive  conversion  and  transmis- 
sion losses;  that  electric  motors  must  operate  at  predetermined 
loads  to  produce  maximum  efficiency ; that  central  power  stations 
cannot  be  regulated  to  a basis  of  50  percent  average  load  factor ; 
and  many  others. 

47.  However,  accepting  the  assertion  that  the  proposed 
electrification  will  produce  1000  gross  ton  miles  for  an  average 
of  40  kilowatt-hours,  or  100*pounds  of  12,000  BTU  coal,  as  stated 
and  generally  approved  by  electrical  engineers,  what  can  the 
modern  steam  locomotive  do  to  justify  its  existence? 


IS 


48.  Dynamometer  car  tests  made  by  a Joint  Committee  of 
representatives  of  the  New  York  Central  and  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road and  the  American  Locomotive  Companies  during  August, 
1910,  of  the  first  Mallet  type  of  locomotive  put  into  use  on  the 
Pennsylvania  Division  of  the  New  York  Central  and  operated 
over  the  65  miles  of  average  .5  percent  grade  line,  between  Avis 
and  Wellsboro  Jet.,  may  be  cited.  This  locomotive  was  built  ten 
years  ago  and  by  no  means  represents  the  best  practice  of  the 
present  day  when  superheat  has  been  increased  and  a more 
efficient  all  round  machine  is  produced.  At  that  time  the  average 
of  six  runs  gave  a thermal  efficiency  of  6.01  for  the  locomotive, 
and  a test  made  on  August  27,  1910,  is  representative  and  shown 
in  Table  III. 


TABLE  III 


Miles  run,  about 65 

Cars  in  train,  No 65 

Cars  in  train,  tonnage 3,734 

Running  time 4 Hrs.  35  Min. 

Time  on  road 6 Hrs.  51 L;  Min. 

Average  speed,  MPH 12.9 

Thermal  efficiency  of  locomotive * 6.25% 

Dry  coal  per  drawbar  horsepower  hour 2.90 

BTU  in  dry  coal  as  fired 14,053 

| Cut-off — 

Drawbar  horsepower 1270.4 

Drawbar  pull 34071 

Steam  pressure  in  branch  pipe 203 . 3 

Superheat  in  branch  pipe 143 . 7 

Machine  efficiency  of  locomotive 89.21 

Boiler  efficiency 69.07 


49.  Taking  now  the  entire  New  York  Central  with  its  high 
and  low’  grade  lines  and  the  Pittsburg  and  Lake  Erie  with  its 
low-grade  lines  and  we  have  from  the  Government  reports  for 
the  year  1919  the  coal  consumption  for  all  freight  locomotives 
as  shown  in  Table  IV. 


TABLE  IV 


Railroad 

Pounds  of  Coal  Consumed  per 

1000  Gross  Ton  Miles 

Jan.,  Feb., 
March 

April,  May, 
June 

July,  Aug., 
Sept. 

Oct.,  Nov., 
Dec. 

New  York  Central 
Pittsburg  and  Lake  Erie 

1 

155.0 

104.3 

124.6 

82.1 

119.0 

77.2 

147.8 

95.7 

19 


50.  The  foregoing  do  not  show  an  opportunity  to  bring 
about  a two-thirds  saving  in  fuel  by  electrification,  and  there  is 
no  doubt  but  that  these  steam  locomotive  performances  can  be 
substantially  improved. 


51.  Furthermore,  the  2-6-6-2  type  Mallet  steam  locomotives 
of  about  88,500  pounds  in  compound,  and  106,200  pounds  in 
simple  gear  tractive  power,  operating  over  a distance  of  about 
155  miles  of  average  rolling  high-grade  line  with  a ruling  grade 
of  1.18  per  cent  seven  miles  long,  between  Birmingham,  Ala.,  and 
Columbus,  Ga.,  on  the  Central  of  Georgia,  during  which  periods 
steam  is  used  about  50  percent  of  the  time,  the  locomotive  drift- 
ing the  balance  of  the  time,  produce  a figure  of  106  pounds  of 
coal  of  approximately  13,500  BTU  value  per  pound  per  thousand 
gross  ton  miles,  and  which  compares  quite  favorably  with  the 
foregoing  hypothetical  figures  as  given  for  electric  operation. 


52.  The  results  of  some  dynamometer  car  tests  made  during 
1918,  to  which  year  the  statements  pertaining  to  this  proposed 
fuel  saving  apply,  may  be  of  interest.  At  that  time  the  steam 
locomotives  tested  were  of  the  ordinary  superheated  Mikado 
freight  type  of  the  following  general  description : 


Weight  on  driving  wheels 110  Tons 

Weight  on  truck  wheels 32  “ 

Cylinders,  simple 25x32" 

Driving  wheels,  diameter 56" 

Steam  pressure 200  Lbs. 

Tractive  power 59,600  Lbs. 


53.  One  locomotive  was  fitted  for  hand  firing  and  burning 
coal  on  grates,  while  another  was  equipped  with  the  “LOPULCO” 
system  for  burning  powdered  coal  in  suspension,  and  the  tests 
were  made  in  tonnage  freight  service  handling  from  2400  to 
2600  tons  east-bound  and  from  1850  to  2250  tons  west-bound  on 
the  Santa  Fe  main  line  between  Ft.  Madison,  Iowa,  and  Marce- 
line,  Mo.,  (the  profile  consisting  of  .8  percent  ruling  grades)  a 
distance  of  112.7  miles,  during  March  and  April,  1918.  The  coal 
averaged  from  1 to  8 percent  moisture,  33  to  38  percent  volatile, 
51  to  41  percent  of  fixed  carbon,  15  to  12  percent  ash,  4 to  3 Yf> 
percent  sulphur,  and  from  12,055  to  11,050  BTU  as  fired.  The 
comparative  average  results  are  shown  in  Table  V. 

20 


TABLE  V 


ITEM 

Powdered 

Coal 

Locomotive 

Hand 

Fired 

Locomotive 

1 

Total  trips  run  (112.7  miles  each) 

14 

10 

2 

“ miles  “ 

1578 

1127 

3 Average  running  time — Hours 

5.06 

5.25 

4 

“ dead  time  — “ 

1.25 

1.01 

5 

“ total  time  — “ 

6.31 

6.26 

6 

“ speed,  MPH 

22.3 

21.6 

7 

“ trailing  tonnage  per  train 

2278 

2283 

8 

“ gross  1000  ton  miles 

256.5 

255.4 

9 

“ coal  per  gross  1000  ton  miles 

82.4 

114.8 

10 

“ superheat — degrees  Fahrenheit 

223 

173 

11 

“ coal  per  boiler  and  superheater  HP 

Hour.  . 

3.74 

4.99 

12 

“ BTU  per  pound  of  coal  as  fired,  lbs.  . . 

12,025 

11,160 

54.  As  the  coal  supplied  to  the  grates  of  the  hand  fired 
locomotive  was  considerably  lower  in  heat  value  than  that 
specified  in  the  electrification  project,  and  as  the  tests  were  run 
during  March  and  April,  it  can  be  assumed  from  the  foregoing 
that  the  average  yearly  performance  will  approximate  100 
pounds  of  12,000  BTU  coal  per  1000  gross  ton  miles,  or  equiv- 
alent to  what  we  are  promised  for  the  expenditure  of  billions  of 
dollars  of  new  capital  and  the  loss  of  billions  of  dollars  worth 
of  investment  in  existing  plant  and  equipment  to  inaugurate  the 
comforts  of  electrification. 

55.  On  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  between  Carbondale,  Pa., 
and  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,  a distance  of  about  94  miles,  of  which  74 
miles  is  0.3  percent  ruling  grade,  their  hand  fired  Consolidation 
type  locomotives  averaging  about  65,000  pounds  tractive  power, 
will,  with  helper  service  over  20  miles  of  from  1.0  to  1.4  percent 
grade,  handle  freight  trains  averaging  about  3,800  actual  gross 
tons  at  an  average  speed  of  about  15  miles  per  hour,  and  with  a 
coal  consumption  (mixture  of  50%  anthracite  buckwheat  and 
50%  run-of-mine  bituminous)  of  about  76  pounds  per  1000  gross 
ton  miles  when  using  a feed  water  heater  and  of  about  86  pounds 
when  using  injectors  (exclusive  of  coal  used  by  helpers). 

56.  It  is  also  not  out  of  order  to  refer  to  dynamometer  car 
tests  which  it  is  understood  have  been  made  on  the  New  York 
Central,  wherein  on  the  basis  of  the  same  comparative  thermal 
value  of  the  coal,  a single  expansion  superheated  steam  locomo- 
tive required,  per  drawbar  horsepower  hour,  about  2.6  pounds  of 
coal  as  compared  with  about  2.25  pounds  for  an  electric 
locomotive. 


21 


57.  Mr.  A.  Lipotz,  Chief  of  the  Russian  Mission  of  Ways  of 
Communication,  has  also  presented  some  data  relating  to  exhaus- 
tive tests  made  on  Russian  Railroads  during  the  period  1908  to 
1914,  with  simple  and  cross-compound  types  of  steam  locomotives 
with  and  without  superheaters,  which  are  of  interest  in  this 
connection.  These  locomotives  were  of  the  Mogul  type  of  approx- 
imately the  following  general  characteristics: 


Cylinders,  simple,  diameter 

“ , cross-compound,  dia._ 

“ , stroke 

Driving  wheels,  diameter 

Steam  pressure 

Weight,  on  driving  wheels 

“ > total  exclusive  of  tender 


191/2" 

HP  191/2"  LP  291/2" 
251/2" 

67" 

185  Lbs. 


104.000  Lbs. 

132.000  Lbs. 


58.  When  operated  on  four  different  divisions,  with  trains 
of  the  same  tonnage  and  under  otherwise  like  conditions  the 
greatest  fuel  economy  was  obtained  with  the  cross  compound- 
superheater  locomotives  and  successively,  with  the  simple  cylin- 
der-superheater, cross  compound-saturated  and  simple  cylinder- 
saturated.  In  general  average  the  cross  compound  locomotives 
showed  a saving  of  about  17  percent  as  compared  with  the  simple, 
and  the  superheater  locomotives  showed  a saving  of  about  21 
percent  as  compared  with  the  saturated,  while  the  cross  com- 
pound-superheater locomotives  showed  a combined  saving  of 
about  35  percent  as  compared  with  the  simple-saturated 
locomotives. 


59.  The  Russian  Railroad  results  from  cross  compounding 
and  superheating  are  confirmed  by  the  performance  obtained 
from  similar  equipment  applied  to  various  types  of  locomotives 
on  various  railroads  in  this  country  and  Canada  from  time  to 
time,  and  as  there  are  now  about  65,000  steam  locomotives  in  the 
United  States,  of  which  probably  62,000  have  simple  and  only 

3.000  have  compound  cylinders,  and  of  which  total  only  about 

25.000  are  as  yet  equipped  with  superheaters,  the  foregoing 
indicates  what  steam  locomotive  fuel  savings  are  still  possible 
merely  through  the  application  of  cross  compounding  or  super- 
heating, or  these  combined  factors. 


60.  Just  as  the  Interborough  Rapid  Transit  Company  has 
found  it  possible  to  bring  about  a saving  of  from  15  to  20  percent 
in  current  consumption  by  means  of  coasting  recorders  as  a 
check  on  the  human  factor,  so  can  the  proper  organization  and 
field  supervision,  checking  and  education  reduce  the  fuel  losses, 
wastes  and  consumption  of  the  existing  steam  locomotives  and 

22 


the  increasing  cost  of  coal  and  oil  will  no  doubt  bring  about  early 
and  extraordinary  savings  and  economies  in  that  direction,  from 
the  source  of  fuel  supply  to  the  stack,  to  the  end  that  1000  BTU’s 
of  fuel  fired  will  produce  greater  thermal  efficiency  than  ever 
before.  That  this  is  entirely  practicable  may  be  confirmed  by 
some  tests  made  under  the  direction  of  Professor  Goss  at  the 
Altoona  Testing  Plant  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  some  years 
ago,  when  in  a series  of  steam  locomotive  tests  he  reduced  the 
dry  coal  fired  per  drawbar  horsepower  hour  from  5.2  to  3.9 
pounds,  or  about  33  percent,  by  merely  substituting  experienced 
for  inexperienced  firemen. 


Efficiency  of  Locomotive  Operation 

61.  The  off-setting  fuel  and  energy  losses,  due  to  standby  in 
the  steam  operation,  and  decrease  in  efficiency  on  account  of 
fluctuating  loads  in  the  electric  operation  must  not  be  lost  sight 
of.  Neither  should  those  incident  to  the  transforming,  trans- 
mission and  conversion  of  electric  current  and  like  factors  be 
neglected. 

62.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  when  operating  under 
ideal  fixed  load  conditions,  .the  central  power  station,  either 
hydro-electric  or  steam,  can  produce  a horsepower  with  less 

. initial  energy  input  than  is  possible  on  a steam  locomotive.  It  is 
* also  true  that  the  standby  losses  on  existing  steam  locomotives 
are,  in  ordinary  practice,  a serious  proportion  of  the  total  fuel 
consumption,  but  it  is  likewise  a fact  that  the  majority  of  these 
can  be  substantially  reduced  if  not  entirely  overcome,  by  modern- 
izing the  present  equipment  and  improving  maintenance  and 
operation,  which  would  then  rob  the  electrical  engineers  of  their 
main  argument  in  favor  of  a blanket  electrification. 

63.  While  the  electrical  engineers  and  manufacturers  in  this 
country  deserve  great  credit  for  the  progress  made  in  the 
development  of  the  electric  locomotive,  they  have  as  yet  been 
unable  to  design  one  which  can  operate  at  maximum  efficiency 
throughout  its  range  of  load.  The  point  of  maximum  efficiency 
being  well  established  and  fixed,  and  the  current  curve  on  an 
electric  motor  not  being  flat,  any  over  or  under-load  from  the 
predetermined  maximum  efficiency  load  increases  the  current 
consumption.  Furthermore,  when,  on  account  of  transportation 
conditions  a motor  is  required  to  carry  an  overload  for  periods 
of  five  or  six  hours,  it  either  breaks  down  due  to  heating  or 
otherwise  requires  special  power  consuming  auxiliaries  or  long 
rest  periods  for  the  dissipation  of  the  heat  stored  within  itself 
due  to  the  resistance  of  the  current  through  the  wiring,  to  permit 
of  continuous  operation. 


23 


64.  However,  what  the  steam  engineer  is  unable  to  reconcile 
in  electric  locomotive  design,  is  such  radical  departures  in  one 
year’s  time  as  have  taken  place  in  the  St.  Paul  electric  pas- 
senger locomotives,  as  may  be  noted  from  Table  VI. 


TABLE  VI 


Railroad 

ST.  I 

>AUL 

No.  of  locomotives 

5 

10 

Year  put  into  service 

1920 

1920 

Class  of  service 

Pass. 

Pass. 

Driving  wheels,  No 

24 

12 

“ “ , Diameter 

44" 

68" 

Weight,  total  locomotive,  pounds 

530,000 

550,000 

“ on  driving  wheels,  “ 

458,000 

336,000 

“ guiding  wheels,  “ 

72,000 

214,000 

Tractive  Power,  1-Hour  rating,  forced  vent 

46,000 

66,000 

“ Continuous  rating,  forced  vent. . . 

42,000 

49,000 

Speed,  Hour  rating,  MPH ....  

26.4 

22.7 

“ Maximum  safe,  MPH 

65. 

65. 

Factor  of  adhesion,  1-Hour  rating 

9.98 

5.09 

Kind  of  Drive 

Direct 

Geared 

65.  Instead  of  a serious  effort  toward  efficiency,  economy, 
standardization  or  interchangeability,  practically  every  mechan- 
ical and  electrical  detail  in  these  two  lots  of  five  and  10  each 
locomotives  produces  radical  engineering  changes,  and  the  factor 
of  adhesion  of  9.98  indicates  an  enormous  amount  of  driven  dead 
weight.  In  fact,  there  are  346,000  pounds  in  each  of  the  five, 
and  286,000  pounds  in  each  of  the  10  locomotives,  or  more  than 
the  weight  on  the  engine  and  tender  trucks  of  a steam  locomotive 
of  like  capacity,  that  are  not  needed  to  provide  the  required 
adhesion  and  which  necessarily  must  be  charged  to  the  electrical 
apparatus. 


66.  Furthermore,  to  produce,  at  various  hydro-electric  or‘ 
steam  power  plants,  electric  current  at  say  6600  volts  AC,  step 
the  same  up  to  100,000  volts  AC,  connect  and  transmit  it  from 
100  to  300  miles  through  transmission  lines  to  switching  sub- 
stations located  approximately  30  miles  apart,  step  down  to  2300 

24 


volts  AC,  and  then  convert  into  direct  current  at  say  3000  volts 
for  locomotive  use,  involves  expensive  lines,  plants  and  equip- 
ment, as  well  as  tremendous  losses  from  the  generator  at  the 
central  power  station  to  the  bus  bar  on  the  direct  current  side  of 
the  transformer,  where  the  current  is  usually  metered  for  bill- 
ing. Also  the  secondary  system,  involving  the  distribution  lines 
between  sub-stations  and  the  secondary  line  made  up  from  the 
bonding  of  the  rails  or  of  a copper  secondary  line  returning  to 
the  station,  as  well  as  the  losses  through  the  motors  and  the 
machine  friction  of  the  electric  locomotive  itself,  are  responsible 
for  further  losses  in  current,  all  of  which,  after  allowing  for  say 
10  percent  regeneration,  not  only  limit  the  capacity  of  the  electric 
zone  but  also  materially  increase  the  arbitrary  electric  costs 
usually  considered,  so  that  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  actual  dead 
loss  in  power  from  the  central  power  station  to  the  electric  loco- 
motive drawbar  will  be  not  less  than  50  percent. 


67.  In  some  of  the  published  and  confidential  reports  relat- 
ing to  the  St.  Paul  installation  the  only  item  of  electric  losses 
taken  into  consideration  was  between  the  high  tension  bus  bars 
at  the  sub-station  and  the  input  to  the  motors  on  the  locomotive, 
the  losses  between  these  two  points  being  approximately  37  per- 
cent. With  the  sub-stations  on  the  St.  Paul  spaced  approximately 
30  miles  apart,  and  with  3,000  volts,  there  is  a 600  volts  drop 
between  sub-stations  under  normal  operation,  and  this  is  further 
increased  by  the  power  limiting  apparatus  which  is  designed  to 
keep  down  the  peak  load.  Therefore,  the  entire  structure  of 
estimated  costs  of  comparative  electric  and  steam  operation 
seems  to  have  been  based  on  figures  obtained  after  the  power  had 
been  generated,  transformed  and  transmitted,  and  the  losses  due 
to  the  various  steps  incident  thereto  neglected. 


68.  The  number  of  factors  entering  into  an  analysis  of  the 
net  thermal  efficiency  of  the  electric  locomotive,  in  terms  of  draw- 
bar pull,  are  so  many  as  to  make  it  impossible  with  the  lack  of 
dynamometer  car  and  laboratory  test  data,  to  arrive  at  a figure 
which  is  not  based  on  a number  of  assumptions ; but  as  a matter 
of  interest,  assuming  that  all  of  the  factors  are  affected  equally 
in  the  electric  locomotive,  the  net  thermal  efficiency  at  the  draw- 
bar, when  taking  into  consideration  the  boiler,  engine,  generator, 
step-up  transformer,  AC  transmission,  step-down  transformer, 
AC-DC  converter,  DC  transmission,  motors,  and  machine  efficien- 
cies may,  as  representative  of  average  existing  practice,  be 
illustrated  as  in  Table  VII. 


25 


TABLE  VII 


Net 

Load  Rating 

Equipment 

Thermal 
Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

100 

75 

50 

Boiler 

f Factor 

\ Efficiency 

76.7 

76 

72 

Engine 

/ Factor 

(18.25) 

(18.29) 

(19 . 17)  - 

X Efficiency 

14 

13.9 

13.8 

Generator 

f Factor 

X Efficiency 

(90) 

12.6 

(89.5) 

12.44 

(86) 

11.88 

Transformer,  Step-up 

f Factor 

X Efficiency 

(98) 

12.34 

(96) 

11.93 

(90) 

10.67 

Transmission,  AC 

f Factor 

X Efficiency 

(90) 

11.10 

(95) 

11.32 

(97) 

10.34 

Transformer,  Step-down . . . 

f Factor 

X Efficiency 

(98) 

10.87 

(96) 

10.85 

(90) 

9.30 

Converter,  AC  to  DC 

f Factor 

X Efficiency 

(80) 

8.69 

(75) 

8.13 

(63) 

5.85 

Distribution,  DC 

f Factor 
\ Efficiency 

(90) 

7.82 

(95) 

7.71 

(97) 

5.66 

Motors,  DC 

f Factor 

(91.5) 

(90.8) 

(89.5) 

\ Efficiency 

7.15 

7.00 

5.05 

Machine  Drawbar 

f Factor 
\ Efficiency 

(81) 

5.79 

(85) 

5.95 

(90) 

4.54 

69.  Likewise  the  net  thermal  efficiency  of  existing  represen- 
tative steam  locomotives,  in  terms  of  drawbar  pull,  may  be 
illustrated  in  Table  VIII. 


TABLE  VIII 


Equipment 

Superheated 

or 

Saturated 

Steam 

Net 

Thermal 
Per  Cent 

Load  Rating 

Per  Cent 

10  0 

75 

50 

Boiler 

{ Superheated. 

1 Saturated  . . . 

[ Superheated. 

[ Saturated . . . 
f Superheated. 

1 Saturated . . . 

f Factor 
\ Efficiency 
f Factor 

X Efficiency 
f Factor 

X Efficiency 
( Factor 

X Efficiency 
f Factor 

X Efficiency 
f Factor 

X Efficiency 

42.7 

45.0 
(11.9) 
5.08 
( 7.8) 
3.51 
(75) 
3.85 
(77) 
2.70 

54.9 

57.4 
(11.0) 
6.04 
( 8.4) 

4.82 
(80) 

4.83 
(80) 
3.86 

65.9 

70.0 
(10.5) 
6.92 
( 7.8) 

5.46 
(85) 
5.88 
(82) 

4.47  ! 

Cylinders 

Machine  Drawbar. 

26 


70.  Comparing  the  electric  and  steam  locomotive  figures  as 
illustrated  in  Tables  VII  and  VIII,  the  relative  percentage  of 
power  delivered  at  the  track  rails  to  100  percent  BTU  in  the  coal 
would  be  as  per  Table  IX. 


TABLE  IX 


Kind  of  Locomotive 

Net  Thermal  Efficiency 
at  Load  Ratings  of 

100 

Per  Cent 

75 

Per  Cent 

50 

Per  Cent 

Electric 

5.79 

5.95 

4.54 

Steam,  Superheated 

3.85 

4.83 

5.88 

Steam,  Saturated 

2.70 

3.86 

4.47 

71.  As  100  percent  load  rating  conditions  would,  in  practice, 
occur  only  momentarily  and  as  the  majority  of  the  drawbar  load 
represents  from  30  to  60  percent  of  the  locomotive  maximum 
drawbar  capacity,  comparison  should  properly  be  made  only  of 
the  net  thermal  efficiencies  at  50  percent  load  ratings. 


72.  As  a check  on  the  foregoing  figures  relating  to  steam 
operation,  the  tabulation  of  various  laboratory  dynamometer 
test  performances  of  representative  types  of  steam  passenger 
and  freight  locomotives  is  presented  as  per  Table  X. 


27 


TABLE  X 

LABORATORY  DYNAMOMETER  TEST  PERFORMANCES  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  TYPES  OF  STEAM  LOCOMOTIVES. 


Boiler 

Efficiency 

Percent 

X CD  O CO  CO  ^ 
OOOOCOHO 

TTCOCOICIO© 

75.09 

67.15 

e-  co  i>  co 

CO  CM  CD  -T 

© © ^ © 
© CD  CO  CD 

05  OO  C3 
ii^COl' 

O CD  O 
£—  GO  to  CO 

050000i>rH 
rf  05  CO  £-03  £- 

© GO  ^ — 05  © 
30  £-  00  C-  © 

t-  © ^ © © TP  — J 
© i— i <M  <M  © © t— 

© t-h  C3  CO  03  d © 

© c-  © © i>  © i> 

Machine 

Efficiency 

of 

Loco- 

motive 

Percent 

CO  © CO  05  CO  © 
I'HlOHOOTh 

CO  TH  £-  CO  O 

05  00  OS  00  00  00 

88.2 

89.8 

O i-l  05  t}i 
© © e- 

35  h*  05  i> 
X)  05  00  GO 

CO  CO  £—  05 
CO  05  CD  t— i 

3«H- 
30  00  05  GO 

CO  t-h  © 00  30  © 
© tH  CD  CD  30  CO 

t-  CO  TJJ  tD  ID 

X)  00  £-  GO  fc~  © 

© © t-  © © -P  © 

© 00  © CO  © © © 

rP  © l>  © 00  © © 

© 00  00  00  GO  00  t- 

Superheat 
in  Branch 
Pipe 

Degrees 

Fahrenheit 

t-h  to  tH  CO  CO  CO 
o 03  CO  Tf  05  o 

cioooocoio 

00  — O 00  05  00 

195.0 

260.0 

tJJ  CD  £- 

00  (M  CO 
CO  © © © 

1— 1 T— 1 r— 1 I— 1 

160.5 

201.9 

246.3 

268.4 

© © © t-  ^ 

(M  © <M  © C-  TP 

■cH  © © © 03  03 
H Cl  f T(l  w © 

<M  (M  t-h  <M  C3  <M 

-H  co  N rjl  i>  H 

03  (M  Tjt  © © © £-  . 
© 00  00  © © © © 
t-h 1 t-h  t-i  03  03  03  T-i 

Steam 
Pressure 
in  Branch 
Pipe 

Lbs. 

OOSCDCOf-'# 

co  © © os  io 

00  05  05  05  00  05 

180.0 

168.0 

©©•**© 

35  CO  Tfi  CO 
35  05  05  <35 

© C—  i— 1 CO 

30  CD  CO  T* 
Tf  "Ff  CO  CO 
CJ  « N (M 

03  00  00  tP  © 

tP  03  © © 03  © 

35  © © © © © 
HrlCHHHrl 

tJH  rH  © ^ ^ oo  CO 

— < i-i  © co  © d 

© © © © © © © 

*“ 1 T- 1 t-H  f— t H rH  -rH 

Drawbar 

Pull 

Lbs. 

^ O?  oo  © ^ © 

QOOrH^CQCO 
CM  ©_©  CD  © © 
cm"  i>  t-h  "d  05 

T#  CO  CO  IN  r-1  H 

23,115 

29,128 

(MOGOH 
CO  CD  05  CO 

■35  i— i co 

oo"'  CD*  CO* 

'CP  CO  <M 

TjJ  CO  ^ GO 

Ttt  <m  co  'cr1 

C-  CO  — _ t- 
r-*  i>  id  <M* 
03  CO  tp  CO 

CO  © 00  00  (M  ID 
© © © to  £>  CO 
30  30  © 03  iO  IO 
©*  CO*  ©~  ©*  C— * i> 

© © t-  03  i>  © © 

-r  © © |>  ©3 

03  CC  © © © -^  CO 

©*  ©*  t>  ©*  CO*  03*  ©* 

03  03  t-H  t-h  t — 1 t-H 

Drawbar 

Horse- 

power 

Lbs. 

O ^ CD  t-h  o O 

co  e-  eo  co  tji  os 

t-  CO  t-h  CM  CO  © 

(M  io  © nfi 

1167.6 

1994.9 

945.4 

1794.1 

1941.3 

2130.9 

CO  05  ID  GO 

05  03  d CO 
© t>  CO  CO 
30  -rfi  CD  tO 
H <M  03 

OQO©J>t'ffl 

© CM  fc-  t-h  03  <M 
© GO  CO  30  ^ 00 
M CO  © £-  IO  © 

— H T— 1 T-I  t— 1 t-h  t-H 

D th  © CO  © © © 

© t-  © t-  03  © © 

— © CO  © © — © 

03  © 03  © © © © 

03  03  03  03  03  03  -rH 

Cut-off 

Percent 
of  Stroke 

CO  rt!  O CO  CD 

CD  CO  O t-h  CM  00 
00  CO  io  ^ CO 

33.3 

59.3 

05  CO  05  Tt< 

O (M  03  <M 
CD  CD  1C  O 

cd  to  i>  -cr 

O O O <M 

CICO 

© 03  © © © © 

© to  © © CO  00 
CO  CO  03  03  03  CO 

<-  03  © TjJ  i>  i>  © 

© TjH  © 03  © © 

O -cfJ  hji  ^ rfi  to  CO 

BTU 

in 

Dry  Coal 
as 

Fired 

o o o o o o 

^ CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 
T-^  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

d"  $5  ®0  CO*  CO  CO* 

13,122 

13,090 

e-  t-  t* 
rf  CO  ^ ^ 
© 05^  q ©_ 
co  CO*  d"  -d 

1 1 1 I 

C-  £-  Hp  to  TP  © 

© © © OO  03  © 
N N lO  l-  t"  CO 
d d if  rt! 

© 03  03  03  © © © 
©©©©{>©£- 
--  £>  £>  i>-^©  th  © 

Tf  Hfl  T^l  Tjt 

Dry  Coal 
Consumed 

per  Drawbar 
Horse  power 
Hour 

Lbs. 

CO  CD  CM  CO  CD  CO 

io  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

2.64 

3.17 

CO  1-1  00  05 

00  CO  03  03 

© -^  © 03 

CO  <M  CO  CO 

t-h  <M  © t"*P  © 

© © CM  <M  © OO 

03  03  03  03  03  © 

f-  03  © © i>  03  TtJ 
© © i>  © © TjH 

M 03  03  03  03  © 03 

Thermal 

Efficiency 

of 

Locomo- 

tive 

Percent 

^ CO  05  00  CO  c- 

COiOlOlCIOcC 

7.34 

6.14 

to  05  ^ 

© © © CO 

—1  o 

CO  th  O 

CD  00  CD  CD 

tP  i->  © h © © 
HHH©000 

O i>  GO  {>  © CO 

03  £-  © © i>  © © 
t-  ^ 03  03 

© t-  © © j>  © © 

Speed  in 
Miles 
per  Hour 

© © i>  © © © 

t>  co  os  © t-  © 

© ^ t-  h oo  © 

HrlH««CO 

18.90 

25.70 

03  © © CO 

C-  <M  35 

•f-  03  03 

10.9 

14.7 

21.8 
29.0 

X)  — ' © CO  CO 
© CO  © 1-H  TP  t- 

£-  C-  © © Tp  00 
03  CO  © © t-  © 

© Tf  © CO  C3  T*I  03 
© © © l>  03  © © 

© i>  i>  © © © © 

03  © ^ © © £>  © 

KIND  OF 
LOCOMOTIVES 

Consolidation  Freight 
46,290  Lbs. 

T ractive  Power  @80  % 
Boiler  Pressure 

Mikado  Freight 
54,587  Lbs. 

T ractive  Power®  85% 
Boiler  Pressure 

Mikado  Freight 
57,850  Lbs. 
Tractive  Power  (a  80% 
Boiler  Pressure 

Decapod  Freight 
90,000  Lbs. 
Tractive  Power  (ft  75  % 
Boiler  Pressure 

Pacific  Passenger 
30,700  Lbs. 
Tractive  Power  @ 80% 
Boiler  Pressure 

Pacific  Passenger 
41,845  Lbs. 

T ractive  Po  wer@  80  % 
Boiler  Pressure 

28 


73.  It  will  be  noted  that  at  speeds  of  from  15  to  75  miles  per 
hour  the  existing  superheated  steam  locomotive  thermal  efficiency 
actually  ranges  from  5.3  to  8.1  percent  as  compared  with  the 
calculated  figures  of  from  4.83  and  5.88  percent  for  75  and  50  per- 
cent load  ratings,  respectively.  Adding  to  this  an  increase  of 
from  15  to  50  percent  in  net  thermal  efficiency  that  may  be  pro- 
duced from  developments  now  under  way  and  the  steam  locomo- 
tive of  the  future  will  be  quite  a respectable  assembly  of 
engineering  efficiency. 

74.  In  a report  made  by  the  Hydro-Electric  Power  Com- 
mission of  Ontario,  on  February  15,  1918,  on  the  rate  of  coal 
consumption  in  73  electric  generating  stations  and  industrial 
establishments  in  Canada  and  the  United  States,  ranging  from 
150  to  150,000  kilowatts  capacity,  the  following  average  figures 
are  given  as  per  Table  XI. 


TABLE  XI 


Average  Size 
of 

Station  Capacity 

COAL 

Load 

Factor 

Efficiency 
in  Conversion 
of  Heat  Energy 
in  Coal  to 
Electric  Energy 
at  Switchboard 

B.T.U. 

per 

Pound 

Pounds  per 

KW 

HP 

Per  Cent 

KW  Hour 

HP  Hour 

650 

870 

12,500 

7.65 

5.70 

29.3 

3.5 

2,980 

4,000 

12,900 

4.30 

3.20 

34.2 

6.2 

7,230 

9,700 

11,900 

4.07 

3.04 

31.7 

7.0 

24,600 

33,000 

13,600 

2.91 

2.17 

36.0 

6.6 

96,000 

128,800 

14,000 

2.01 

1.50 

36.9 

12.1 

149,000 

199,500 

13,500 

1.92 

1.43 

44.7 

13.1 

46,340 

62,600 

13,600 

3.81 

2.84 

35.5 

8.4 

75.  Comparing  the  foregoing  with  the  laboratory  test  data 
on  steam  locomotives,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  thermal  efficiency 
at  the  switchboard  of  the  largest  stations  is  only  about  double 
that  of  the  average  steam  locomotive  at  the  drawbar. 


Cost  for  Enginemen 

76.  When  the  use  of  the  electric  locomotive  was  contem- 
plated it  was  thought  that  a single  motorman  could  be  substituted 
for  the  steam  locomotive  engineer  and  fireman.  Under  existing 
conditions  this  is  neither  permissible  nor  practical,  and  as  each 
electric  locomotive  must  carry  a man  comparable  to  but  who 
does  not  function  as  a fireman,  his  wage  is  an  added  expense 
without  economic  return  and  must  be  charged  to  the  cost  of 
firing  the  central  power  station  boilers  or  otherwise  distributed. 


29 


Cost  of  Maintenance 


77.  In  determining  the  maintenance  cofet  of  the  electric 
locomotive  the  popular  error  is  to  take  into  account  the  locomo- 
tive proper,  whereas  a true  comparison  can  only  be  made  by 
including  all  corresponding  elements  as  found  in  the  self-con- 
tained steam  locomotive  which  goes  back  to  the  upkeep  of  all 
facilities  having  to  do  with  the  utilization  of  the  fuel  or  water 
power,  including  the  central  power  station  buildings;  boilers; 
engines;  conversion,  transmission,  distributing  and  contact  line 
systems ; sub-stations ; track  rail  bonding  and  insulation ; electric 
disturbance  cut-outs  or  neutralizers;  extra  expense  in  upkeep 
of  the  electric  zone  trackage ; and  like  auxiliaries  and  finally  the 
electric  locomotive  itself. 

78.  With  particular  reference  to  the  maintenance  cost 
figures  that  have  been  given  out  as  applying  to  the  New  York 
Central,  Michigan  Central,  Pennsylvania  and  St.  Paul  railroads 
for  the  years  1913  to  1918  inclusive,  and  which  range  from  $3.78 
to  $10.87  per  100  locomotive  miles  run,  these  no  doubt  apply  to 
the  electric  locomotive  units  only,  and  if  so  would  appear  excep- 
tionally high  even  for  relatively  new  built  steam  locomotives. 
While  it  is  true  that  during  the  first  few  years  of  life  the  expense 
for  maintenance  of  electrical  equipment  is  low,  after  that  time 
the  deterioration  of  the  insulation  necessitates  constant  testing 
and  renewal,  which  entails  great  expense  and  delay  to  say  nothing 
of  frequent  failures  and  partial  or  complete  destruction.  Conse- 
quently until  a true  reflection  of  the  investment  interest,  depreci- 
ation, taxes  and  insurance  and  the  upkeep  cost  per  electric 
locomotive  mile  and  per  1000  gross  ton  miles  hauled,  can  be  given 
by  including  all  the  factors  and  elements  of  age  and  mechanism 
that  are  embodied  in  the  steam  locomotive,  all  comparisons  will 
be  worthless. 


Peak  LooA  Conditions  in  Relation  to  Traffic  Requirements 

79.  With  the  steam  locomotive  the  traffic  requirements  are 
met  by  the  distribution  and  utilization  of  the  necessary  number 
of  self-contained  motive  power  units  as  required,  regardless  as 
to  the  capacity  of  one  or  more  central  power  stations  or  of  any 
limitation  in  quantity,  or  in  price,  of  the  total  available  power 
output.  The  operation  of  one  or  of  500  steam  locomotives  at 
their  maximum  capacity  at  any  given  or  for  any  duration  of 
time  on  a single  division,  is  of  no  concern. 

80.  However,  in  order  to  meet  the  ideal  conditions  for 
electrification,  the  traffic  should  be  uniformly  spread  or  scattered 
over  the  24-hour  period,  whereas  in  the  majority  of  cases  train 
movement  is  based  on  traveling  and  shipping  conditions  and 
cannot  be  advanced  or  delayed  in  order  to  eliminate  peak  load 

30 


conditions.  That  this  cannot  be  done  in  order  to  maintain  a 
straight  line  power  demand  can  be  illustrated  by  citing  the  con- 
dition that  exists  in  any  large  industrial  center  where  freight 
accumulates  and  is  switched  during  the  day  period  and  the  out 
and  inbound  train  movements  concentrate  in  fleets,  principally 
in  the  evening  and  morning,  respectively,  and  cause  peak  load 
requirements  at  those  times.  To  contemplate  a change  in  indus- 
trial working  hours  or  conditions,  or  in  the  movement  of  live- 
stock and  perishable  freight  in  order  to  overcome  these  limiting 
rnd  troublesome  peaks  by  equalizing  the  movement  would  be  out 
of  the  question. 


Ease  of  Starting  Trains 

81.  Due  to  the  uniform  torque  as  developed  by  the  electric 
locomotive,  its  adherents  have  laid  great  stress  on  its  ability  to 
start  a heavier  train  than  a steam  locomotive  of  relatively  the 
same  tractive  power  and  factor  of  adhesion.  In  steam  railroad 
service  the  locomotive  is  seldom  required  to  start  “the  train”  but 
what  it  does  is  to  start  each  car  in  the  train,  successively,  and 
which  nullifies  this  theoretical  advantage  of  the  electric  locomo- 
tive. In  fact,  with  steam  locomotives  of  the  Mallet  and  other  types 
having  compound  cylinders  equipped  with  properly  designed 
simpling  devices  the  starting  power  is  increased  about  20  percent 
as  compared  with  electric  locomotives  of  equivalent  road  rating. 


Rate  of  Acceleration 

82.  In  order  that  the  desired  running  speeds  may  be  reached 
in  the  minimum  of  time  after  the  starting  of  trains,  the  ability  of 
a locomotive  to  rapidly  accelerate  its  load  is  of  considerable 
importance,  and  in  this  respect  the  electric  power  has  had  the 
advantage.  The  steam  locomotive  engineer  has,  however,  not 
lost  sight  of  this  fact  and  improvements  already  made  in  boiler 
and  cylinder  horsepower  ratios,  as  well  as  developments  now 
undergoing  for  the  utilization  of  existing  non-productive 
adhesive  weight  and  to  increase  the  co-efficient  of  friction 
between  the  propelling  wheels  and  the  track  rails  will  enable 
the  steam  locomotive  to  duplicate  the  performance  of  its  electric 
competitor  in  this  regard. 


Train  Braking 

83.  Since  the  development  of  regenerative  braking  with  the 
electric  locomotive,  great  emphasis  has  been  laid  on  the  increased 
securitv  of  operation  over  heavy  grade  lines  due  to  the  ability 
of  the  locomotive  to  hold  the  train  under  complete  and  positive 
control  on  the  down  grade  without  breaks,  by  temporarily  con- 
verting the  main  motors  into  generators  to  produce  electricity 


31 


which  is  returned  to  the  line  for  use  by  some  other  locomotive  in 
pulling  a train.  Considerable  attention  has  also  been  directed  to 
the  saving  brought  about  through  the  elimination  of  the  ordinary 
air  braking  on  such  down  grades. 

84.  The  Baltimore  and  Ohio  has,  with  steam  locomotives, 
successfully  and  safely  handled  its  heavy  tonnage  and  dense 
traffic  on  the  Cumberland  and  Connellsville  Divisions  for  many 
years  with  the  ordinary  air  brake  equipment,  and  this  tonnage 
descends  a grade  averaging  approximately  2.2  percent  for  17 
miles,  at  an  average  speed  of  from  15  to  20  miles  per  hour  for 
freight,  and  from  25  to  30  miles  per  hour  for  passenger  trains, 
without  slow-downs  or  stops.  This  performance  is  comparable 
with  that  on  the  worst  grade  conditions  in  the  St.  Paul  electrified 
zone,  and  while  an  increase  in  the  capacity  of  freight  cars  to  as 
high  as  120  tons,  as  those  now  in  use  on  the  Virginian  and  Nor- 
folk and  Western,  makes  the  factor  of  train  braking  an  important 
one,  the  use  of  the  improved  light  and  loaded  car  air  brake 
equipments  solves  that  question  in  a safe  and  efficient  manner. 

85.  While  the  regenerative  system  of  braking  can  probably 
be  developed  to  a point  where  it  can  be  safely  used  without  the 
train  air  brake,  it  is  problematical  as  to  what  economy  will  result, 
as'  evidenced  by  the  recent  serious  accident  on  the  St.  Paul 
wherein  a heavy  tonnage  freight  train  made  up  with  an  electric 
locomotive  at  the  head  end  and  a steam  Mallet  helper  locomotive 
at  the  rear  end,  broke  away  from  the  latter  and  derailed  the 
entire  train  of  about  65  cars  on  a 20  mile  grade  of  2.2  percent, 
due  to  the  failure  of  the  regenerative  brake  control.  When  the 
power  so  generated  cannot  be  directly  used  by  another  pulling 
locomotive  on  the  line,  it  must  be  otherwise  absorbed,  and  it 
remains  for  the  electrical  engineers  to  prove  just  how  much  of 
it  is  lost  in  conversion  or  by  absorption  and  the  resulting  net 
gain  as  compared  with  the  investment,  fixed  charge  and  upkeep 
and  operating  cost  for  the  equipment  involved. 


Effect  of  Weather  Conditions 

86.  Even  though  the  full  steaming  capacity,  horsepower  and 
drawbar  pull  of  a modern  steam  locomotive  can  be  developed 
during  cold  weather  conditions,  there  are  the  factors  of  radiation 
and  freezing  to  be  reckoned  with,  which  gives  the  electric  loco- 
motive the  advantage  in  winter,  particularly,  as  its  effectiveness 
is  greater  on  account  of  the  lesser  tendency  for  the  motors  to 
overheat.  This  winter  advantage,  however,  is  largely  overbal- 
anced during  the  summer  when  the  main  motors  heat,  especially 
under  overloads,  and  require  cooling  at  terminals  or  otherwise 
overheat  and  result  in  insulation  break-downs  or  burn-outs,  or 
other  troubles. 


32 


87.  Anyone  using  the  electrified  service  of  the  New  York 
Central  or  the  New  York,  New  Haven  & Hartford  out  of  Grand 
Central  Terminal  is  aware  of  the  noise  from  the  continual  use  of 
blowers  for  cooling  the  transformers  and  main  motors  when 
locomotives  are  at  rest,  and  of  the  insulation  troubles  which  are 
not  only  the  cause  for  delays  and  fires,  but  for  the  destruction 
of  entire  locomotive  units  and  the  complete  tying  up  for  hours  of 
the  dual  railroad  system  traffic  pending  relief  by  steam  loco- 
motives. 


Road  Delays  and  Tie-Ups 

88.  While  the  electric  locomotive  has  the  advantage  of  not 
being  required  to  take  on  fuel  and  water,  except  for  the  operation 
of  steam  heating  equipment  for  passenger  trains,  with  the  in- 
creased capacity  of  the  modern  steam  locomotive  tenders,  and 
the  lower  water  and  fuel  rates  per  drawbar  horsepower  devel- 
oped, the  delays  due  to  taking  on  these  supplies  have  been  greatly 
reduced  and  need  not  be  serious.  Delays  in  taking  water  have 
long  since  been  entirely  eliminated  through  the  use  of  track 
troughs,  and  with  modern  fueling  facilities  either  coal  or  oil  can 
be  quickly  supplied,  where  necessary,  between  terminals. 

89.  While  the  hours  of  service  law;  points  of  origination, 
gathering,  classification,  distribution  and  interchange  of  traffic ; 
and  like  factors,  rather  than  the  distances  that  individual  loco- 
motives can  be  run,  regulate  the  distance  of  solid  train  runs 
without  breaking  up  and  re-classification,  still  the  modern  steam 
locomotive  is  not  seriously  lacking  as  regards  continuous  and 
monthly  mileage  capacity.  In  fact,  in  view  of  steam  locomotive 
mileages  obtainable,  i.  e.,  from  400  to  600  miles  per  round  trip, 
and  from  10,000  to  12,000  miles  per  month,  no  less  an  authority 
on,  and  promoter  of,  modern  constructive  steam  railroads  than 
Mr.  L.  F.  Loree,  contemplated  as  early  as  1908  the  running  of 
through  fast  freight  trains  between  Baltimore  and  Chicago  with 
single  pulling  locomotives,  assisted  by  helpers  as  necessary,  over 
ruling  grades.  Mr.  Loree’s  idea  was  to  make  a steamship  opera- 
tion of  a locomotive  and  freight  train,  but  the  difficulty  in  work- 
ing out  satisfactory  engine  and  train  crew  arrangement,  and  not 
the  inability  of  the  steam  locomotive  to  make  the  run,  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  abandonment  of  the  project. 

90.  However,  a demonstration  along  this  line  was  recently 
made  by  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  when  a train  of  70  empty  coal 
cars  leaving  Jersey  City  on  July  11th  at  12:30  A.  M.  reached 
Rockwood,  Pa.,  at  9 o’clock  the  next  morning,  the  train  movement 
of  415  miles  having  been  accomplished  in  321^  hours,  or  at  a 
speed  of  about  307  miles  per  freight  car  per  day. 

91.  Barring  collisions,  wrecks  and  like  accidents  not  due  to 
the  system  of  motive  power  in  use,  steam  operation  is  not  sus- 


33 


ceptible  to  complete  tie-ups  as  is  the  case  with  electrification, 
where  short  circuits  or  failures  occur  due  to  rains,  floods,  storms 
and  like  causes,  and  as  the  result  of  motor,  wiring  and  insulation 
heating,  deterioration  and  break-downs,  as  the  individual  mobil- 
ity of  each  piece  of  motive  power  without  regard  to  any  outside 
source  of  power  enables  quick  relief.  This  has  not  only  been 
repeatedly  demonstrated  on  the  New  York  Central,  New  Haven, 
and  Long  Island  electrified  sections,  but  in  several  instances  it 
has  resulted  in  serious  stoppage  and  congestions  of  traffic,  the 
most  notable  of  which  was  that  on  the  New  Haven  in  December 
and  January,  1915-1916,  when  on  account  of  a blizzard,  steam 
locomotives  had  to  be  substituted  for  the  entire  electrical  opera- 
tion, due  to  break-down  of  the  communication  and  control  sys- 
tem and  the  failure  of  insulators,  grounding  arcs  and  short  cir- 
cuits in  connection  with  the  over-head  transmission  and  feeder 
lines. 


Terminal  Delays 

92.  The  examination  of  reports  of  a dense  heavy  freight 
traffic  railroad  in  the  Eastern  District  shows  the  time  of  its 
steam  locomotives  for  a recent  two  months'  period  distributed 
as  follows: 

1.  In  road  service 50  % of  total  time 

2.  At  terminals,  awaiting  trains  and  other- 

wise in  hands  of  Transportation 

Department 26.4%  of  total  time 

3.  At  terminals  in  hands  of  Mechanical 

Department 23.6%  of  total  time 


93.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  electric  has  an  advantage 
over  the  steam  locomotive  as  regards  time  required  for  periodical 
boiler  work,  fire  cleaning  and  rebuilding,  fueling  and  watering 
except  where  fuel  oil  is  used,  but  where  terminal  delays  occur 
due  to  waiting  for  trains,  such  as  the  foregoing  statement  sets 
forth,  the  time  required  for  such  work  does  not  become  an  ex- 
pensive determining  factor  in  the  daily  average  miles  to  be 
obtained  per  locomotive.  Also  the  fact  that  the  electric  loco- 
motive cannot,  without  terminal  rest  periods  or  otherwise  the 
consumption  of  power  to  operate  auxiliaries,  operate  at  its  maxi- 
mum capacity,  must  not  be  overlooked.  Furthermore,  many  im- 
provements in  the  fuel  and  ash  handling  and  combustion  equip- 
ment of  the  steam  locomotives  using  coal  are  now  in  process  and 
terminal  delays  due  to  these  causes,  as  well  as  to  lack  of  proper 
engine  house  facilities  for  quick  despatchment,  are  annually 
being  reduced  by  improved  means  and  methods. 

34 


Hazards 


94.  With  the  establishing  of  more  scientific  and  careful 
methods  of  designing,  testing  and  inspection,  and  the  more  ex- 
tended use  of  safety  appliances,  the  failures  of  steam  locomotive 
boilers  and  machinery,  particularly  those  resulting  in  personal 
injury,  are  relatively  low  as  compared  with  the  work  performed. 
It  is  therefore  doubtful  if  there  is  any  greater  proportion  of  risk 
from  the  steam  locomotive  in  that  regard  than  from  electrocu- 
tion and  other  attendant  dangers  from  high  voltage  electrifica- 
tion. 


35 


Discussion  of  Papers 

on  the 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

By  Me.  George  Gibbs 

Chief  Engineer , Electric  Traction , Long  Island  Railroad 
October  22,  1920. 

In  discussing  this  subject  it  is  permissible,  I presume,  to 
view  it  from  the  standpoint  of  either  design  or  performance.  It 
concerns  the  relative  advantages  of  two  kinds  of  power  plants 
for  conducting  railway  transportation. 

In  steam  service  the  plant  is  a part  of  the  moving  train; 
in  electric  it  has  both  stationary  and  moving  elements,  viz.,  a 
central  power-generating  plant,  various  connecting  links  to  bring 
the  power  to  the  train,  and  means  of  utilizing  it  there. 

As  regards  simplicity,  therefore,  the  self-contained  steam 
locomotive  has  an  inherent  advantage  over  the  combination  of 
elements  required  for  electric  propulsion,  and  the  latter  must 
show  some  peculiar  advantages  in  an  operating,  rather  than  a 
structural,,  sense  if  it  is  to  supersede  steam  traction.  Further- 
more, the  steam  locomotive  has  been  developed  to  a perfection 
of  detail  and  a high  degree  of  steam  economy  during  the  one 
hundred  years  of  its  use;  it  does  wonderful  work,  and  is  in 
possession  of  the  field,  representing  a heavy  money  investment 
and  can,  therefore,  be  displaced  (even  by  something  better)  only 
by  slow  degrees.  So  I think  railway  men  can  discuss  this  new 
rival  of  the  steam  locomotive  with  calmness  and  should  cooperate 
with  our  enthusiastic  electrical  friends  in  giving  their  sugges- 
tions a trial ; you  never  can  tell  what  good  may  develop  out  of  a 
thin"  especially  when  one  does  not  fully  understand  its  pos- 
sibilities. I speak  as  a steam  railway  man — that  was  my  bring- 
ing up,  and  I confess  to  a sneaking  fondness  for  the  reliable  old 
“iron  horse,”  and  may  be  pardoned  for  frankness.  But  I am  also 
sufficiently  “in”  with  the  new  order  of  things  to  make  plain 
speaking  to  my  electrical  friends  proper  and  to  suggest  to  them 
due  modesty  in  making  their  claims.  We  want  cooperation  of 
both  sides  in  the  development  of  a useful  new  traction  means. 
This  is  especially  desirable  now,  as  the  paramount  necessity  of 
the  country  is  more  and  better  transportation.  If  it  can  be 
furnished  through  electric  traction,  in  particular  cases  as  a 
starter,  we  should  know  it  now. 

I cannot  go  into  technical  details  tonight,  but  I think  our 
electrical  friends  will  concede,  and  mechanical  men  must,  in 
light  of  sufficient  evidence  furnished  by  existing  installations, 
that  an  electric  system  will  function  in  a successful,  reliable  and 
efficient  manner  for  any  kind  of  railway  service.  It  is  capable 
of  unlimited  hauling  capacity,  is  flexible  as  to  speed  and  has 

36 


important  features  conducing  to  safety  in  handling  trains.  It 
is,  however,  to  the  fundamental  question  affecting  its  adoption 
which  I wish  to  draw  attention.  “Is  the  substitution  of  electric 
for  steam  haulage  warranted  by  its  advantages  in  the  production 
of  more  transportation,  and  if  so,  is  it  practicable  financially  ?” 
No  sweeping  generalization  to  the  effect  that  electric  traction 
will  be  used  because  it  functions  well  will  impress  railway  man- 
agers; they  must  have  the  answer  to  the  above  question. 

Now,  as  regards  the  first  portion  of  this  query,  it  would 
appear  that  there  are  a number  of  important  situations  in  which 
electric  traction  will  produce  results  which  cannot  be  had  by 
the  steam  locomotive,  notably  in  increasing  existing  track  capac- 
ity, especially  on  lines  having  heavy  grades,  in  yard  shifting, 
in  suburban  and  terminal  services,  and  in  locations  (such  as  in 
tunnels) , where  the  absence  of  combustion  is  necessary  or  desir- 
able. Such  installations  should  be  undertaken  if  financially 
feasible,  and  this  can  only  be  determined  by  a critical  examina- 
tion of  each  case.  Assuming  that  the  money  can  be  raised  for 
an  improvement  which  will  pay,  it  will  be  found  that  electric 
traction  will  pay,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  special  cases  to 
an  extent  depending  upon  the  density  of  traffic  and  the  difficulty 
of  maintaining  proper  steam  operation.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  an  electric  installation  involves  a higher  first  cost  than  for 
steam,  in  fact,  its  adoption  means  that  more  or  less  existing 
investment  must  be  scrapped,  therefore,  the  increase  in  fixed 
charges  must  be  offset  either  by  the  direct  operating  savings 
produced  or  these  plus  the  indirect  savings  and  benefits.  The 
latter  may  mean  avoidance  of  permanent  way  additions,  a per- 
missible change  in  operating  methods,  more  traffic  moved,  and 
new  kinds  of  traffic  produced.  The  direct  savings  have  been 
under  discussion  tonight;  in  spite  of  some  difference  in  opinion, 
I think  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  there  is  always  a 
large  saving  in  fuel  with  electric  traction,  generally  some  sav- 
ing in  maintenance  cost  of  “power  equipment’'  and  often  im- 
portant savings  in  train  crew  costs,  engine  house  expenses, 
minor  supplies,  etc. 

Sometimes  these  “direct”  savings  will  be  sufficient  to  return 
a handsome  profit  over  and  above  charges;  if  not  the  indirect 
savings  must  be  included.  It  will  avoid  future  disappointment 
if  we  face  the  facts;  the  electrification  of  the  railways  of  the 
country  as  a whole,  or  the  electrification  of  the  whole  of  any 
extensive  component  system,  is  neither  practicable  nor  desir- 
able, measured  by  costs  and  results;  the  doom  of  the  steam 
locomotive  has  not  been  sounded  and  will  not  be  in  our  time. 
But  the  fact  that  electrification  is  not  universally  applicable 
should  not  discourage  anyone ; it  has  a very  large  and  profitable 
field  (both  for  the  railways  and  the  manufacturers).  These 
facts  indicate  the  importance  of  carefully  investigating  each 
proposed  application  to  insure  that  it  is  properly  conceived  and 
carried  out. 


37 


Discussion  of  Papers 

on  the 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 


By  Mr.  A.  W.  Gibbs 

Chief  Mechanical  Engineer , Pennsylvania  System 
October  22,  1920. 


I have  read  with  much  interest  the  papers  on  steam  versus 
electric  operation  of  railroads,  and  cannot  but  feel  that  both 
Messrs.  Muhlfeld  and  Armstrong  have  been  a bit  too  enthusias- 
tic. Both  methods  of  operating  have  their  advantages  and  both 
have  decided  limitations. 

In  Mr.  Armstrong’s  case  his  data  is  largely  derived  from 
mountain  electrification,  where  the  electric  locomotive  is  un- 
doubtedly at  its  best  and  the  steam  at  its  worst,  and  he  has 
compared  with  it  a type  of  steam  locomotive  whose  coal  and 
water  rate  is  more  than  double  that  of  locomotives  which  are 
especially  designed  for  such  service.  Then  on  this  mountain 
performance  he  reasons  from  the  particular  to  the  general  ap- 
plication of  electric  operation.  True,  he  puts  in  a disclaimer  as 
to  the  particular  steam  locomotives  referred  to  representing  the 
best  modern  practice,  which  brings  up  the  question — Why  cite 
them  at  all? 

It  is  not  at  all  certain  that  the  speed  advantage  claimed  is 
by  any  means  true  where  the  steam  locomotive  is  designed  for 
the  work. 

On  page  3 he  gives  a comparative  statement  of  the  perform- 
ance of  two  steam  and  one  electric  locomotives  to  which  excep- 
tion can  be  taken  because  the  steam  locomotives  do  not  represent 
the  last  word  as  to  those  available,  and  the  electric  locomotive  is 
on  paper. 

I submit  data  for  a 2-10-0  type  steam  locomotive  of  which 
over  100  are  in  regular  service  and  of  which,  fortunately,  very 
full  information  is  available  from  the  locomotive  testing  plant. 
These  locomotives  were  expressly  designed  to  do  all  of  their 
work  within  the  economical  range  of  steam  distribution,  the  re- 
quired power  being  obtained  by  increases  in  size  of  cylinders  and 
steam  pressure.  While  I have  given  the  power  at  nearly  the 
speed  mentioned  by  Mr.  Armstrong,  the  performance  is  excel- 
lent at  double  the  sneeds  <?iven.  but  the  sacrifice  in  drawbar  pull — 
from  nearly  60,000  oounds  at  14.7  miles  per  hour  to  about  43,000 
pounds  at  25.3  m.p.h. — would  not  be  justified.  The  figures  given 
are  within  the  range  where  stoker  firing  is  as  economical  as 
expert  hand  firing,  with  the  additional  advantage  that  the  stoker 
does  not  get  tired. 


38 


This  is  a special  design  in  which  the  advantage  is  that  it 
cannot  be  worked  at  uneconomical  points  of  cut-off.  At  speeds 
and  pulls  where  the  usual  design  is  also  worked  at  an  economical 
range  its  performance  is  about  the  same. 

2-10-0  Type  Steam  Locomotive. 


Weight  in  Working  Order 371,000  pounds 

Weight  on  Drivers 342,050  “ 

Weight  on  Engine  and  Tender 523,000  “ 

Drawbar  Effort  at  14.7  miles  per 

hour,  45%  cut-off 58,900  “ 

Gross  Tons  (2%  grade) 1,280 

Trailing  Tons  1,019 

Coal  per  D.H.P.  at  this  speed  and 

cut-off  2.8 

Tractive  Effort  at  22  miles  per  hour, 

40%  cut-off 42,500  pounds 

Gross  Tons 923 

Trailing  Tons 662 

Coal  per  D.H.P 3.2 

Tractive  Effort  at  25.4  miles  per 

hour,  45%  cut-off 43,600  pounds 

Gross  Tons 948 

Trailing  Tons 687 

Coal  per  D.H.P. 3.8 


The  Mallet  performance  given  in  Mr.  Armstrong’s  paper  is 
evidently  that  of  one  of  the  large  compound  locomotives.  In  all 
of  these  locomotives  there  is  a tendency  to  choke  up  with  in- 
creases of  speed,  due  to  increase  of  back  pressure. 

The  same  arrangement  of  limited  maximum  cut-off  used  in 
the  2-10-0  locomotive  already  described  has  been  embodied  in  a 
simple  Mallet  now  running.  This  locomotive  has  the  same  speed 
elasticity  as  the  2-10-0  type.  Unfortunately,  this  Mallet,  which 
has  a tractive  power  of  about  130,000  pounds,  cannot  be  tried 
out  on  the  present  locomotive  testing  plant.  Its  drawbar  pull 
is  also  above  the  capacity  of  the  dynamometer  car,  so  that  no 
definite  figures  can  be  quoted  until  new  recording  springs  have 
been  applied  and  the  machine  calibrated. 

In  brief,  the  improvements  in  the  steam  locomotive,  if  prop- 
erly availed  of,  have  much  narrowed  the  field  of  economical 
electrification. 

Stand-by  Losses.  While  these  losses  are  actual  and  large 
it  is  very  difficult  to  fix  their  value,  as  they  are  so  much  affected 
by  the  use  made  of  the  locomotive.  Where  the  average  monthly 
mileage  is  low  the  stand-by  loss  is  presumably  high,  and  it  is  a 
part  of  good  operation  to  bring  up  the  average  mileage  as  high 

39 


as  possible.  When  all  is  said  the  electric  locomotive  has  still 
an  advantage  with  respect  to  stand-by  losses,  provided  there  are 
sufficient  trains  in  motion  to  smooth  out  the  total  demand  on 
the  power  plant,  which  is  assumed  to  be  steam  operated. 

Weather.  The  independence  of  the  electrical  locomotive  of 
severe  weather  is  another  undoubted  advantage,  not  so  much 
because  of  the  performance  of  the  motors,  but  rather  from  the 
avoidance  of  losses  and  delays  due  to  ash-pit  work  and  to  frozen 
pipes  and  other  parts,  incidental  to  the  presence  of  water  on  the 
steam  locomotive.  Where  cold  weather  is  a steady  winter  diet, 
this  is  usually  better  handled  than  where  cold  spells  are  spas- 
modic. 

Liability  to  Interruption.  Electric  operation  is  dependent 
on  uninterrupted  connection  with  the  source  of  power.  In  the 
event  of  breakage  of  the  line,  especially  of  the  overhead  con- 
struction, the  trains  in  the  section  involved  are  dead  and  cannot 
get  themselves  out  of  the  way  of  the  repair  trains.  On  large 
systems  it  is  customary  to  make  great  changes  in  the  assign- 
ment of  locomotives  to  clear  up  congestion  at  any  point  on  the 
system;  also,  to  avail  of  diversion  routes  on  which  steam  trains 
may  be  moved  around  obstructions  on  the  main  line.  The  fact 
that  the  steam  locomotive  is  a self-contained  power  plant  is  an 
immense  advantage  in  this  respect.  In  electric  operation  there 
is  not  this  freedom  of  movement. 

Speeds.  The  question  of  speed  is  evidently  treated  from  the 
freight  standpoint,  for  there  has  never  been  any  question  as  to 
the  speed  capacity  of  well  designed  passenger  locomotives,  being 
far  beyond  that  permitted  by  the  rules. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  many  of  the  electric 
locomotives  could  be  very  much  improved  by  closer  adherence 
to  steam  standards  as  to  distribution  of  weights  and  in  the  adop- 
tion of  wheel  arrangements,  which  will  not  set  up  resonant  dis- 
turbance at  high  speeds. 

While  Mr.  Armstrong  treats  the  question  of  speed  from  the 
meeting  point  of  view,  it  is  probable  that  electrification  will  have 
its  greatest  application  on  roads  where  the  traffic  is  dense,  prob- 
ably on  multiple  track  roads.  As  I see  it,  the  feature  of  high 
speed  of  trains  is  of  less  importance  than  uniformity  of  speeds 
of  different  trains.  If  tonnage  trains  had  the  same  speed  as 
preference  trains,  and  could  thus  avoid  the  great  delay  due  to 
side  tracking  of  trains  of  inferior  rights,  far  more  would  be 
accomplished  than  the  mere  saving  in  time  over  the  division  due 
to  the  increased  speed.  With  steam  trains  at  25  miles  an  hour 
water  may  be  picked  up  from  track  troughs.  Coaling  stops  will, 
however,  still  be  necessary.  Delays  due  to  the  train  itself,  by 
which  I mean  hot  boxes,  burst  hose,  broken  coupler  knuckles, 
etc.,  would  occur  equally  with  steam  or  electric  operation. 

There  are  some  figures  in  Mr.  Armstrong’s  paper  which  are 
not  clear — for  instance,  on  page  3,  tractive  power  at  18  percent. 

40 


is  given  for  three  locomotives.  The  value  of  these  figures  is  not 
evident,  and  it  cannot  be  admitted  that  a fixed  coefficient  will 
apply  to  different  types  of  steam  locomotives.  Up  to  a certain 
point  the  tractive  effort  is  governed  by  the  cylinder  and  wheel 
dimensions,  beyond  which  point  the  boiler  capacity  rules.  The 
data  given  is  too  meagre  for  checking.  By  the  same  token  it 
may  be  asked  whether  the  tractive  effort  of  the  electric  loco- 
motives is  anything  more  than  the  multiplication  of  the  driver 
weights  by  the  same  fixed  coefficient.  If  so,  the  rest  of  the 
figures  in  the  same  table  are  aerial  for  all  the  locomotives. 

I fully  agree  with  Mr.  Armstrong  that  the  1,000-ton-mile 
has  absolutely  no  value  as  a method  of  comparison  for  different 
roads,  and  it  should  not  be  used  except  possibly  for  comparing 
the  same  division  at  different  periods. 

The  table  on  page  IB  appears  to  contain  numerical  errors, 
and  there  is  the  same  objectionable  fixed  coefficient  which  may 
or  may  not  be  true.  It  is  an  inexact  figure  at  the  best  and 
would  put  a premium  on  piling  up  useless  dead  weight  on  drivers. 
The  only  comparison  which  has  any  value  is  the  record  of  an 
accurate  dynamometer  car. 

Cost  of  Maintenance.  On  page  5 is  given  maintenance  cost 
per  mile  for  different  electric  locomotives.  Any  figures  of  post 
war  dates  are  so  clouded  by  the  abnormal  labor  and  material 
costs  as  to  be  very  doubtful.  These  locomotives  have  not  run 
long  enough  to  reach  a general  level  of  costs  as  it  will  be  noted 
that  the  average  annual  mileage  is  low  except  in  the  case  of  the 
Milwaukee  locomotive.  Besides  this,  there  is  no  evidence  as  to 
the  maintenance  costs  of  the  rest  of  the  outfit,  including  power 
plant,  transformers,  transmission  lines,  converters  or  trans- 
formers, trolley  or  third-rail,  and  track  circuits,  all  of  which 
are  essential  to  the  operation  of  electric  locomotives,  and  are  just 
as  much  a part  of  the  electric  locomotive  as  the  boiler  is  of 
the  steam  locomotive.  If  current  is  purchased  the  purchase 
price,  of  course,  includes  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  power 
plant  and  of  the  transmission  line  to  the  point  where  the  current 
is  received  on  the  road.  If  it  is  generated  by  the  using  company 
the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  power  plant  should  be  included 
with  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  locomotives.  The  renewals 
of  parts  of  the  power  plant  and  transmission  lines  do  not  occur 
in  the  early  stages  of  operation,  but  they  are  certain  to  come 
and  when  they  do  are  heavy.  From  experience,  I must  deny  that 
the  back  shop  can  be  dispensed  with,  with  either  class  of  loco- 
motive, though  it  is  admittedly  more  essential  in  the  case  of  the 
steam  locomotive. 

Extent  of  Electrification.  Where  electrification  is  con- 
templated a very  serious  question  is:  What  shall  be  its  extent? 
Naturally  the  desire  would  be  to  wipe  out  as  many  as  possible 
of  the  extensive  accessories  to  steam  operation.  If,  however, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  operate  steam  trains  over  the  electrified 

41 


section,  it  will  obviously  be  necessary  to  retain  water  stations 
and  possibly  fuel  stations,  provided  the  electrified  section  is  suf- 
ficiently long.  This  operation  of  steam  locomotives  under  their 
own  power  over  electrified  sections  would  be  necessary  in  case 
of  redistribution  and  possibly  in  case  of  diversions  where  the 
electrified  section  formed  part  of  the  diverted  line.  Therefore, 
the  claim  for  economy  in  doing  away  with  these  features  of 
steam  operation  would  probably  not  be  realized. 

Mr.  Muhlf eld’s  Paper.  In  my  judgment,  Mr.  Muhlf eld’s 
enthusiasm  has  carried  him  too  far  in  minimizing  the  advantages 
of  electrification.  The  operation  of  the  electrified  roads  has  un- 
doubtedly been  good,  whether  it  be  terminal  or  road  operation. 
The  reduction  in  the  number  of  engine  terminals  alone  is  a great 
advantage,  to  say  nothing  of  the  absence  of  fuel  and  water  service 
with  the  stops  that  they  entail,  the  way  to  get  trains  over  the 
road  being  to  keep  them  moving. 

He  also  ignores  the  fact  that  the  modern  improvements 
which  have  so  added  to  the  performance  of  the  steam  locomo- 
tives are  potential  only.  For  instance,  it  is  very  possible  and 
common  by  indifference  to  so  carry  water  in  the  boiler  that 
the  superheater  becomes  merely  a steam  dryer  and  its  value 
disappears.  In  many  cases  because  of  neglect  of  damper 
mechanism  or  from  dirty  flues  little  benefit  is  derived  from 
improved  appliances.  Modernizing  of  steam  locomotives  calls 
for  intelligent  use  of  the  devices,  which  will  come  when  the  old 
spirit  of  loyalty  returns. 

Conclusions.  The  electric  locomotive  or  electric  operation 
has  in  many  cases  undoubted  operating  advantages  because  the 
power  is  generated  in  quantity  at  few  sources  and  the  power  on 
any  one  train  is  not  limited  by  the  capacity  of  a self-contained 
portable  power  plant ; sustained  speeds  are  possible  due  to  inde- 
pendence of  fuel  and  water  stations  and,  as  a result  of  both  these 
conditions,  better  use  can  be  made  of  a given  stretch  of  road. 

Electrification  does  not  at  all  obviate  the  numerous  class  of 
delays  due  to  the  train  itself,  such  as  hot  boxes  or  other  of  the 
numerous  derangements  which  when  combined  so  much  retard 
the  movement  over  the  road. 

Electrification  does  not  obviate  that  class  of  delay  arising 
from  necessary  classification  on  line  of  the  road  to  meet  terminal 
requirements.  Where  the  terminal  conditions  limit  the  capacity 
of  the  road  as  a whole  electrification  is  not  the  remedy. 

On  level  grade  roads  where  the  existing  steam  locomotives 
will  handle  all  the  cars  that  can  be  safely  moved  in  one  train,  the 
value  of  electrification  will  be  principally  the  absence  of  stops  and 
probable  reduction  in  overtime. 

The  claims  for  fuel  saving  have  been  greatly  overstated  by 
not  making  comparisons  with  the  potential  performances  of  the 
best  steam  locomotives. 


42 


Of  course,  with  steam  locomotives  the  maintenance  or  the 
indifference  of  those  operating  them,  both  on  the  road  and  else- 
where, may  to  a large  extent  nullify  the  savings  possible. 

Stand-by  losses  must  exist  probably  with  both  classes  of 
operation,  but  especially  with  steam,  and  may  be  any  percentage 
of  the  total  consumption,  depending  on  the  actual  use  of  the 
locomotives. 

The  relative  cost  of  repairs  of  both  classes  of  equipment 
cannot  be  fairly  stated  at  the  present  time  because  maintenance 
conditions  are  so  abnormal  and  because  the  most  modern  locomo- 
tives of  both  classes  are  too  new  to  have  reached  a stable  condi- 
tion, this  being  especially  true  of  the  electric  one.  While  the 
indications  are  that  the  maintenance  of  the  electric  locomotive 
will  be  less  than  that  of  the  steam,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  electric  locomotives  are  dead  affairs  without  the  necessary 
electric  generating,  transmitting,  converting  and  track  appli- 
ances, all  of  which  are  an  added  expense,  due  solely  to  electrifica- 
tion; hence  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  all  of  these,  in  addition 
to  that  of  all  of  the  locomotives,  divided  by  the  locomotive  mile- 
age, is  the  real  treasury  cost  of  maintenance  per  locomotive  mile. 

If  the  operating  current  is  purchased,  obviously  the  cost  of 
maintenance  of  generating  apparatus  and  of  all  appliances  to 
point  of  delivery  of  current  is  covered  in  the  rate,  but  in  any 
event,  it  is  ultimately  paid  in  some  form  by  the  user. 

Personally,  I believe  that  many  roads  now  operated  by  steam 
will  be  operated  in  whole  or  in  part  electrically,  but  that  this  will 
not  be  decided  in  the  off-hand  manner  advocated  by  some. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  practically  all  of  the  electrification  on 
steam  railroads  so  far  has  been  based  on  local  conditions.  In 
the  electrifications  in  and  around  cities  a moving  cause  has  been 
the  elimination  of  smoke  and  other  objectionable  features  inci- 
dental to  steam  operation,  and  the  possibility  of  increasing  the 
capacities  of  the  passenger  terminals.  On  the  Milwaukee  road  it 
was  the  utilization  of  available  water  power.  On  the  Norfolk  & 
Western  it  was  to  secure  increase  in  capacity  on  a congested 
mountain  division  with  tunnel  complications.  It  is  fair  to  assume 
that  other  electrifications  will  be  similarly  governed  by  local 
conditions. 

If,  after  careful  consideration  of  the  road,  based  on  actual 
train  sheets  for  the  heaviest  actual  or  probable  congested  opera- 
tion ; the  capacity  and  number,  of  active  and  available  locomo- 
tives required;  crediting  the  operation  with  incidental  savings 
which  may  be  effected,  and  eliminating  expenses  peculiar  to 
steam  operation;  it  appears  that  there  would  be  economy  in 
electrification,  either  from  actual  savings  or  better  operation,  or 
both,  it  still  remains  for  the  management  to  decide  whether  the 
money  required  can  be  spent  to  better  advantage  for  electrifica- 
tion than  for  some  other  features  of  the  general  operation. 

In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  on  originat- 
ing roads  a considerable  part  of  the  locomotive  assignment  is 

43 


devoted  to  services  on  the  branches  feeding  the  main  line  and 
forming  part  of  it,  and  that  in  this  service  they  make  little  mile- 
age. If  these  branches  are  electrified,  their  operation  will  be  a 
decided  drag  on  the  economies  of  the  main  electrification,  for  the 
reason  that  each  of  the  steam  locomotives  will  have  to  be  re- 
placed by  an  electric  one  with  its  greatly  increased  first  cost  with 
small  use  to  justify.  If  they  are  not  electrified  and  the  operation 
of  the  district  is  part  steam  and  part  electric,  locomotive  ter- 
minals, organizations,  and  all  that  goes  to  make  up  steam  opera- 
tion must  be  retained  to  an  extent. 


44 


Discussion  of  Papers 

on  the 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

By  Mr.  W.  L.  Bean 

Mechanical  Assistant,  New  York,  New  Haven  & Hartford 

Railroad 

October  22,  1920. 

The  volume  of  data  and  arguments  presented  in  the  several 
papers  is  so  great  and  the  field  of  the  subject  so  extensive  in 
scope  that  discussion  in  the  permissible  allotment  of  time  must 
be  quite  general  or  at  least  include  few  details. 

One  cannot  escape  the  fact  that  the  prime  factor  to  be 
considered  in  any  engineering  enterprise  of  commercial  nature 
is  the  economic  result  of  the  entire  specific  project.  Results  of 
sub-projects  in  themselves  are  important  and  consideration 
sometimes  of  a multitude  of  factors  of  minor  or  more  than  minor 
nature  must  be  sufficient,  even  to  the  last  detail,  but  partisan- 
ship in  championing  some  of  the  sub-factors  to  the  exclusion 
of  others  is  undesirable  and,  of  course,  does  not  represent  the 
best  of  engineering  procedure. 

It  must  be  conceded  broadly  that  electrical  operation  re- 
quires less  coal  per  unit  of  traffic  handled  than  steam  operation. 
How  much  less  depends  on  the  specific  conditions. 

Likewise,  the  mileage  per  unit  of  electric  equipment  is 
ordinarily  greater  per  unit  of  time.  On  one  largely  electrified 
road  express  locomotives  average  27%  more  miles  per  day  per 
locomotive  owned  than  steam  power  in  similar  service.  How- 
ever, the  first  cost  of  the  electric  engines  per  unit  of  capacity 
was  84%  greater  than  in  the  case  of  steam.  Therefore,  the  fixed 
charges  are  greater  for  the  electric  engine  per  unit  of  service. 

A few  words  respecting  comparative  flexibility,  especially 
in  service  of  a character  which  demands  it,  may  be  of  interest. 
A certain  modem  passenger  electric  locomotive  will  handle  a 
heavy  train  of  Pullmans  at  high  speed  on  a through  run  with 
few  stops  such  as  would  require  a modern  Pacific  type  steam 
engine  of  about  43,000  lbs.  tractive  effort.  However,  to  operate 
the  electric  engine  in  heavy  local  service  over  the  same  distance 
is  impossible  because  of  the  heating  caused  by  frequent  starting. 
In  such  service,  the  maximum  train  which  can  be  handled  by 
the  electric  locomotive  can  only  approximate  what  can  be 
handled  by  a steam  engine  of  about  30,000  pounds  tractive  effort. 

There  is  not  much  elaboration  of  the  fact  that  an  inconsider- 
ate or  over-ambitious  yardmaster  may  overload  the  electric 
engine  and  that  machine,  possibly  in  sympathetic  endeavor  to 

45 


live  up  to  the  expectation  of  its  sponsors,  goes  after  its  job  like 
a spirited  horse.  A steam  locomotive,  on  the  other  hand,  being 
what  might  be  termed  more  phlegmatic,  and  possibly  realizing 
that  its  best  days  may  be  over,  will  do  about  so  much  and  no 
more,  and  either  stalls  or  loafs  over  the  road  without  injury  to 
itself.  Not  so  with  the  electric  engine.  It  may  not  be  subject 
to  “creeping  paralysis,”  but  since  it  leads  a strenuous  life,  it 
acquires  a sort  of  hardening  of  the  arteries  in  the  way  of 
accumulative  depreciation  of  insulation,  which  leads  the  way  to 
heavy  repairs. 

Realization  of  the  extent  of  accumulation  of  wear  and  tear, 
both  electrically  and  mechanically,  makes  it  difficult  to  under- 
stand just  how  railroads  are  to  maintain  electric  locomotives 
without  back  shops  unless  they  job  the  work  out  to  manufac- 
turers of  electrical  equipment.  Bearings  wear,  springs  fail,  axles 
and  frames  break  on  electrics  as  much  as  they  do  on  steam 
engines.  Switch  groups,  transformers,  motors,  both  main  and 
auxiliary,  air  compressors,  blowers,  control  and  collector  ap- 
paratus, all  require  overhauling  periodically.  Officers  in  charge 
of  maintenance  of  electrical  equipment  on  one  Eastern  road  are 
at  present  insisting  that  $350,000  be  expended  soon  for  an  addi- 
tion to  the  present  back  shop. 

Regarding  the  design  of  the  machinery  of  a steam  locomo- 
tive being  utterly  circumscribed  by  the  necessity  for  tying  it 
up  to  a steam  boiler,  the  statement  can  be  made  that  some 
modern  high  powered  electric  locomotives  are  so  compact  with 
apparatus,  both  inside  the  cabs  and  beneath,  as  well  as  on  top, 
that  additions  to,  or  enlargements  of  details,  even  of  a minor 
nature,  are  well  nigh  impossible.  Furthermore,  this  is  not 
peculiar  to  AC-DC  machines. 

When  one  comes  to  attempting  the  solution  of  the  problems 
attendant  on  the  heating  of  passenger  trains,  electrically  drawn ; 
to  find  room  for  the  boiler,  water  and  fuel  oil  storage,  auxil- 
iaries, etc.,  and  keep  within  weight  limitations,  the  difficulties 
are  very  real  and  certainly  lead  one  to  the  conclusion  that  on 
electric  passenger  power,  the  boiler  is  circumscribed  by  electrical 
apparatus. 

It  may  be  inconsiderate  to  remark  that  electrical  engineers 
on  one  road  have  even  advocated  the  construction  of  a tender 
for  carrying  the  boiler  water  tanks,  etc.  Imagine  an  electric 
locomotive  requiring  a tender.  What  about  the  expense  and 
annoyance  of  either  turning  the  engine  or  switching  the  tender 
at  terminals?  What  about  costs,  initial,  operating  and  mainten- 
ance? What  about  dead  weights  hauled  around  and  what  about 
possibly  additional  attendance  cost?  Surely  some  figures  may 
have  to  be  re-vamped. 

In  surveying  electrification  broadly,  one  finds  there  is  a 
vast  field  of  opinion  among  electrical  engineers  as  to  types  of 
installations.  Is  it  possible  that  by  so  many  widely  divergent 
electrical  means  the  final  net  results  are  always  to  the  discredit 
of  steam  operation?  Can  any  type  of  electrical  layout  beat 

46 


steam?  Even  if  so,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  each  electrical 
arrangement  can  be  as  good  as  every  other  one. 

It  appears  that  when  a railroad  goes  in  for  electrification, 
it  must  settle  on  some  type  of  layout,  the  main  characteristics 
of  which  are  fixed.  Extension  must  either  be  along  the  original 
plan  as  to  power  characteristics,  distribution  or  collector  appar- 
atus, or  else  vast  sums  must  be  spent  to  re-vamp  the  existing 
plant  if  the  new  layout  is  not  to  be  largely  separate  and  inde- 
pendent with  all  of  the  inherent  disadvantages  of  non-inter- 
changeability and  lack  of  flexibility. 

The  steam  locomotive,  except  in  a moderate  way  as  to  clear- 
ances and  weight  limits,  has  a wide  range  of  application.  Rail- 
roads loan  steam  power  back  and  forth  with  advantage  usually 
to  both  parties,  but  no  case  comes  to  mind  where  electrical 
equipment  for  heavy  traction  can  be  interchanged. 

The  design  and  operating  characteristics  of  steam  power 
have  developed  far  more  along  lines  of  possible  common  usage 
and  practice.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  lines  of  development 
of  electrical  facilities  will  tend  to  converge  rather  than  diverge 
too  widely. 

Some  reasons  for  such  desirability  are  — 

(a)  Railroad  Managements  will  not  be  so  fearful  of  becom- 
ing tied  up  with  a heavy  and  inflexible  type  of  investment,  which 
may  quickly  become  obsolete  through  not  lending  itself  reason- 
ably well  to  extension  or  modernization. 

(b)  The  need  for  a broader  field  of  design  and  manufac- 
ture of  equipment  and  the  furnishing  of  repair  parts  for  the 
same. 

Dependence  largely  on  one  manufacturing  concern  which 
must  unload  heavy  overhead  charges  at  sur-charge  rates,  un- 
heard of  in  the  case  of  steam  locomotives,  is  highly  undesirable 
and  is  restrictive  to  the  extension  of  electrification. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Study  and  comparison  of  the  details  item  for  item,  of  any 
large  activity,  is  necessary  in  order  to  get  the  benefit  of  real 
analysis,  but  satisfactory  conclusions  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
entire  project  cannot  be  reached  by  setting  up  in  a partisan  way 
outstanding  advantages  on  the  one  hand  any  more  than  by  list- 
ing all  the  disadvantages  on  the  other. 

Certain  more  or  less  intangibles  are  important  and  must  be 
weighed  impartially.  Among  such  are  the  increase  in  real 
estate  value  through  electrification,  increased  capacity  of  road, 
comparative  safety  and  reliability  of  operation,  permanence  of 
type  of  design,  obsolescence  and  depreciation  factors,  etc. 

Tangibles  from  a money  standpoint  can  and  should  be 
segregated  and  set  up  in  full  scope  on  both  sides  of  the  case  and 
conclusions  based  on  the  net  result  at  the  bottom  line  of  the 


47 


balance  sheet.  If  fixed  charges  on  plant,  including  equipment, 
plus  maintenance  charges,  plus  other  out-go,  outweigh  the  sav- 
ings in  fuel,  plus  other  operating  savings,  the  net  result  is  a 
deficit  and  all  manner  of  proclaiming  isolated  pecuniary  advan- 
tages would  not  induce  a careful  investor  to  support  the  enter- 
prise. 


48 


Discussion  of  Papers 

on  the 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

By  Mr.  W.  F.  Kiesel,  Jr. 

Mechanical  Engineer,  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
October  22,  1920. 


Mr.  Shepard  speaks  of  the  transportation  problem  as  a most 
serious  one,  the  movement  of  traffic  having  fallen  far  behind, 
and  expresses  his  belief  that  electrification  is  bound  to  be  the 
most  potent  factor  for  its  relief. 

For  electric  locomotives  he  claims  greater  power,  speed, 
flexibility  and  mobility;  intimates  that  under  electric  operation 
divisions  can  be  made  much  longer ; and  electric  locomotives  can 
be  built  to  take  any  train  which  will  hold  together  over  any  pro- 
file, at  any  desired  speed,  limited  only  by  condition  of  track  and 
car  equipment. 

The  same  claim  can  truthfully  be  made  for  the  steam  loco- 
motive. 

For  either  kind  of  operation,  the  length  of  divisions  and 
location  of  terminals  are  governed  by  other  than  locomotive 
limitations,  or,  at  least,  there  is  no  valid  reason  why  any 
features  of  either  electric  or  steam  locomotives  should  affect 
the  location  of,  or  distance  between,  terminals. 

In  power,  speed,  flexibility  and  mobility,  either  type  can  fur- 
nish all  that  track  and  car  equipment  will  permit.  To  illustrate 
this,  your  attention  is  directed  to  three  recent  locomotives : One 
built  by  the  General  Electric  Company,  for  the  Chicago,  Mil- 
waukee & St.  Paul  Railway,  and  described  in  the  General  Elec- 
tric Company  Bulletin,  No.  44,102,  according  to  which  it  has  a 
starting  drawbar  pull  of  115,000  pounds,  and  a drawbar  pull  of 
56,500  pounds,  at  25  miles  per  hour  on  a 2 per  cent,  grade ; the 
other  two  were  built  by  the  Pennsylvania  System — one  is  an 
electric  locomotive,  having  two  synchronous  speeds  (10  and  20 
miles  per  hour),  and  the  other  a steam  locomotive,  with  four 
simple  cylinders. 

Both  Pennsylvania  System  locomotives  have  a drawbar  pull, 
in  starting,  on  level  tangent,  of  135,000  pounds.  On  grade  the 
effect  of  truck  and  tender  weight  of  the  steam  locomotive  shows 
its  influence,  and  the  net  drawbar  pull,  at  20  miles  per  hour  at 
rear  drawbar  (calculated),  of  these  locomotives  is  as  follows: 

49 


Electric 

Steam 

On  Level 

81,000 

83,375 

1/2  Per  Cent.  Grade 

78,000 

80,250 

it  u 

_ _ 76,000 

77,125 

11/2  “ “ — 

__  73,500 

74,000 

2 

71,000 

70,875 

Furthermore,  the  steam  locomotive  can  deliver  more  net 
drawbar  pull  than  the  Milwaukee  electric  locomotive,  at  any 
speed  up  to  50  miles  per  hour,  and  on  any  grade  that  it  would 
have  to  encounter. 

The  strongest  coupler  in  use  to-day  (American  Railroad 
Association,  type  “D”)  has  an  elastic  limit  of  about  200,000  lbs. 
On  present  equipment  there  are  several  million  couplers  of  a 
strength  inferior  to  this.  Therefore,  it  would  scarcely  be  advis- 
able to  build  locomotives  of  greater  pulling  capacity  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  elastic  limit  of  the  strongest  coupler,  or  135,000 
pounds. 

Mr.  Shepard  mentions  retirement ' of  weaker  car  equip- 
ments, which  no  doubt  is  advisable,  but  will  require  time. 

The  sentence,  “Every  other  industry  that  has  been  elec- 
trified has  experienced  a revolution  in  methods  and  service, 
due  to  electrification,”  invites  the  most  careful  thought  of  those 
contemplating  a change  in  operation. 

Will  electric  service  produce  greater  returns? 

Can  the  revolution  in  methods  and  service  be  accomplished 
without  serious  handicap  during  the  transition  period? 

The  capital  investment  for  electric  service  will  be  more 
than  five  times  as  much  as  for  steam  service. 

The  cost  of  an  electric  locomotive  is  about  twice  as  much 
as  that  of  a steam  locomotive  of  the  same  power. 

The  electric  locomotives  have  shown  some  saving  in  repairs 
over  steam  locomotives,  but,  after  ten  or  twelve  years  service, 
they  require  rebuilding,  especially  in  the  electrical  equipment, 
which  runs  the  total  cost  of  repairs  beyond  that  of  the  steam 
locomotives.  Possibly  this  can  be  improved. 

From  the  report  of  the  Commission  which  investigated  the 
advisability  of  substituting  electricity  for  steam,  in  Chicago,  it 
appears  that  the  maintenance  cost  for  wages  and  material  would 
be  30  per  cent,  more  for  electric  operation  than  for  steam.  This 
is  offset,  at  least  partially,  by  electric  traction  advantages  of 
regeneration,  no  re-forking  of  ballast  to  remove  smoke  stack 
cinders,  and  less  wheel  and  brake  shoe  wear,  etc. 

With  the  exception  of  three  factors:  First,  capital  invest- 
ment; Second,  coal  per  drawbar  horsepower;  and,  Third,  stand- 
by losses,  there  is  too  little  difference  between  the  two,  for  oper- 
ation in  open  country,  for  further  consideration. 

Mr.  Shepard  speaks  of  one  locomotive  as  a generator  of 
power,  and  the  other  as  a transformer  of  power  coming  from 

50 


central  stations  with  many  refinements  and  high  thermal  effic- 
iency. He  credits  the  best  steam  locomotive  with  an  average 
coal  consumption  of  twice  that  of  electric  operation,  for  the  same 
work  performed. 

The  Pennsylvania  System  steam  locomotive  referred  to  has 
the  same  steam  distribution  system  as  that  of  a 2-10-0  locomotive, 
which  has  been  fully  tested  on  the  Locomotive  Test  Plant  (See 
Pennsylvania  System  Test  Bulletin  No.  31),  and  will  burn  no 
more  coal  per  drawbar  horsepower.  The  average  coal  consump- 
tion per  drawbar  horsepower  of  the  locomotive  tested  on  the  plant 
was  2.7  pounds,  for  all  firing  rates  up  to  100  pounds  per  square 
foot  of  grate  per  hour,  and  3.27  pounds  for  all  firing  rates  from 
100  pounds  to  160  pounds  per  square  foot  of  grate  per  hour.  Lo- 
comotives seldom  have  to  burn  more  than  100  pounds  per  square 
foot  of  grate  per  hour.  These  steam  locomotives  had  no  feed 
water  heaters,  the  use  of  which — as  proven  by  other  tests — 
would  reduce  the  amount  of  coal  per  drawbar  horsepower  ap- 
preciably. 

Inquiries  were  sent  to  various  electrified  roads — not  includ  - 
ing those  with  only  short  transmission  terminal  operation 
— requesting  the  average  cost  in  coal  per  K.W.H.  at  the  power 
plant,  the  average  efficiency  of  the  transmission  line  from  power 
plant  to  the  locomotive,  and  the  average  efficiency  of  the  loco- 
motive. 

One  road,  which  has  been  electrically  operated  a number  of 
years,  and  records  each  month's  operation,  shows  a power  plant 
cost  of  coal  per  K.W.H.  of  2-%  pounds  as  the  minimum  when 
the  plant  output  is  maximum.  Taking  this  as  100  per  cent,  load 
factor,  they  show  a cost  per  K.W.H.  of  3.2  pounds  of  coal  for  a 
load  factor  of  50  percent.,  and  3.53  pounds  for  a load  factor  of 
40  percent.  Most  of  the  monthly  record  figures  lie  between  35 
percent,  and  50  percent,  load  factors,  and  the  grand  average  of 
coal  per  K.W.H.  is  above  3%  pounds.  These  figures  necessarily 
reflect  both  the  daily  and  monthly  variations  in  load  factors, 
and  are,  therefore,  high. 

Another  road  reports  40,000  to  44,000  B.T.U.  per  K.W.H. 
at  switchboard,  for  coal  varying  between  13,000  and  14,200  B.T. 

U.  per  pound. 

The  coal  used  in  the  test  of  the  2-10-0  steam  locomotive 
given  above  averaged  13,429  B.T.U.  per  pound. 

Replies  as  to  the  line  efficiency  appeared  inconsistent,  there- 
fore, the  data  given  in  “Power  and  Maintenance  Cost  on  the  St. 
Paul,  by  Renier  Beeuwkes,”  in  Railway  Age,  page  237,  of  August 
6th,  1920,  is  cited.  This  shows  an  average  ratio  of  net  input 
at  locomotive  to  actual  system  input  for  locomotive  of  66.3  for 
the  Missouri  division,  and  of  68.3  for  the  Rocky  Mountain 
division.  Replies  as  to  locomotive  efficiency  indicate  that  this  is 
less  than  75  percent,  in  all  cases. 

Apparently  the  fluctuations  in  load  factor  present  a greater 
menace  to  coal  economy  than  steam  locomotive  standby  losses. 
The  average  load  factor  may  be  taken  at  50  percent.  Neither 


51 


line  efficiency  or  locomotive  efficiency  are  likely  to  average  as 
much  as  75  percent. 

Existing  installations  may  be  taken  as  approaching,  but  not 
yet  equal  to,  three  pounds  of  coal  of  13,500  B.T.U.  per  pound 
per  K.W.I1.  at  power  plant,  a line  efficiency  of  75  percent,  and 
a locomotive  efficiency  of  75  percent.,  resulting  in  a consumption 
of  four  pounds  of  coal  per  drawbar  horsepower  hour.  There- 
fore, the  standby  and  other  losses  of  the  steam  locomotive  can 
be  32.5  percent,  to  equal  the  probable  best  average  performance 
of  present  day  electric  traction  in  coal  consumption,  and  that 
much  loss  would  be  a sorry  reflection  on  operating  methods. 

Possibly  improvements  already  contemplated,  or  that  will 
spring  up  later,  may  change  this  situation,  but  until  actually 
ready  to  do  the  work  as  cheaply  as  the  steam  locomotive,  it  is 
illogical  to  tear  up  the  old  operation  by  the  roots  and  substitute 
a much  more  costly  plant  whose  habits  are  not  so  well  known. 

Mr.  Armstrong  also  dwells  on  greater  power,  speed,  flex- 
ibility and  efficiency,  and  speaks  of  running  a thousand  miles 
with  no  attention,  except  by  crews,  and  describes  ideal  charac- 
teristics of  a locomotive,  none  of  which  apply  to  the  electric 
locomotive  in  any  greater  measure  than  to  a steam  locomotive. 
The  “precedent  and  prejudice”  to  which  he  refers  seems  to  be 
imaginary.  As  he  uncovers  step  after  step  of  his  flights  of 
imagination,  a gradually  increasing  desire  for  “facts”  is  felt. 

In  view  of  existing  locomotives  described  in  the  foregoing,, 
the  table  of  comparisons  between  two  steam  locomotives  — a 
Mikado  at  14  miles  per  hour,  and  a Mallet  at  9 miles  per  hour 
(evidently  not  good  specimens),  and  an  imaginary  electric  loco- 
motive at  16  miles  per  hour — is,  to  say  the  least,  inconsistent, 
and  the  claim  that  a mountain  division  will  have  an  increase  of 
50  percent,  in  daily  tonnage  over  POSSIBLE  steam  engine  per- 
formance is  not  so  “modest”  as  claimed. 

In  this  statement  the  claim  that  “electric  locomotives  can 
be  maintained  for  20  to  25  percent,  of  the  upkeep  cost  of  steam 
locomotives”  should  be  included. 

Two  statements  in  the  fuel  comparison  deserve  some  analy- 
sis. The  standby  losses  for  steam  locomotives  are  given  as  9,042 
pounds  of  coal.  The  regenerative  braking  on  the  electric  loco- 
motive is  credited  with  a saving  of  1,430  pounds  of  coal.  About 
half,  or  4,595  pounds  of  coal,  of  the  standby  losses  are  for 
making  Are  and  drifting,  which  is  high.  The  coal  used  for  mak- 
ing fire  is  not  all  loss.  In  ordinary  service  there  will  be  no  re- 
generation on  upgrade,  or  on  level,  and  probably  none  on  down 
grades  of  less  than  % percent.  On  steeper  down  grades  the  re- 
generative current  must  buck  the  line  current.  Returning  18 
percent,  of  current  used,  back  into  the  line,  appears  high,  and 
leads  to  the  suspicion  that  Mr.  Armstrong  uses  a comparison 
between  a very  bad  steam  operating  condition,  with  a very  good 
electric  operating  condition,  which  is  not  representative  of  aver- 
ages. At  present,  steam  locomotive  standby  losses  are  high, 

52 


but,  when  railroads  get  back  to  normal,  these  losses  will  be 
materially  reduced,  and  the  average  will  no  doubt  be  less  than 
15  percent,  of  the  coal  used.  Regeneration  may  be  a slight 
factor,  but  it  will  be  nearly  negligible  in  averages. 

For  certain  local  conditions,  electric  traction  should  be  given 
priority  rights,  even  if  the  cost  is  greater.  They  are: 

1.  In  tunnel  operation. 

2.  In  large  cities  and  their  suburbs. 

3.  Where  sufficient  water  power  is  available. 

4.  Where  super-power  plants  can  be  built  in  juxtaposition 
to  an  adequate  supply  of  culm,  or  other  low-grade  combustible 
not  easily  marketable. 

In  the  open  country,  where  smoke  and  gases  from  the  stack 
are  not  seriously  objectionable,  existing  installations  do  not  yet 
indicate  that  electric  traction  can  be  carried  on  with  as  little 
coal  consumption  as  modernized  steam  traction. 

If  the  problem  arises  to  replace  an  installation  consisting 
of  steam  locomotives  which  are  too  small  and  inefficient,  larger 
and  more  economical  steam  locomotive  units,  to  meet  any  power 
and  speed  requirements  within  the  limitation  of  track  and  equip- 
ment, can  be  substituted  for  the  smaller  units  without  in  any- 
way interfering  with  the  continuity  of  traffic  or  educating  the 
personnel  to  handle  the  new  power. 

As  tersely  stated  by  Mr.  Shepard,  the  substitution  of  electric 
traction  will  require  a revolution  in  methods  and  service. 

The  answer  to  the  problem  is  governed  by  whether  there  is 
a saving  in  coal  with  electric  traction  over  that  with  steam 
traction,  including  standby  losses,  and  whether  this  saving  is 
sufficient  to  pay  interest,  depreciation,  taxes,  insurance,  etc.,  on 
more  than  400  percent,  greater  capital  investment,  and  for  the 
interruption  of  traffic  and  the  revolutionizing  of  the  organiza- 
tion during  the  transition  period. 

Paper  by  Mr.  J.  E.  Muhlfeld,  which  was  received  after  the 
foregoing  was  completed,  could  not  be  digested  in  time  to  com- 
pare his  analysis  with  that  herewith. 

Altoona,  Pa., 

October  18th,  1920. 


53 


Discussion  of  Papers 

on  the 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

By  Mr.  R.  M.  Brown  ' 

Engineer  of  Motive  Power,  New  York  Central  Railroad. 
October  22,  1920. 


The  subject  is  one  which  involves  many  factors  which  I am 
not  fully  prepared  to  discuss  and  therefore  can  only  comment 
upon  some  of  the  things  which  have  been  said  here  tonight. 

Figuring  the  cost  of  maintenance  or  operation  of  steam  vs. 
electric  locomotives.  In  the  steam  locomotive  we  must  maintain 
and  operate  a complete  power  plant,  whereas,  in  the  electric 
locomotive,  we  merely  have  the  tractor.  However,  in  comput- 
ing comparative  costs — either  from  maintenance  or  operating 
standpoints,  it  seems  absolutely  necessary  that  consideration 
must  be  given  to  the  proper  proportion  of  the  cost  of  operating 
the  central  power  plant  in  electric  service  and  also  the  cost  of 
transmission  of  power. 

One  of  the  most  important  phases — if  not  the  most  im- 
portant— is  the  matter  of  cost  based  upon  either  one  of  two 
things : existing  conditions  or  the  situation  15  or  20  years  hence. 
The  railroad  to-day  must  pay  7 % interest  on  money  and  capital 
expenditure  involved  in  the  construction  of  power  plants,  sub- 
stations and  electric  transmission  lines,  which  would  be  so 
enormous  as  to  almost  be  out  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Armstrong  has  suggested  certain  things  which  the 
Train  Dispatcher  might  be  able  to  accomplish  with  electric  loco- 
motives. If  the  present  steam  locomotives  could  be  removed 
from  the  rails  and  replaced  with  electric  locomotives  of  equal 
capacity,  what  would  the  experienced  Train  Dispatcher  be  able 
to  accomplish?  Assuming  that  capacity  means  equal  maximum 
drawbar  pull  in  starting  and  that  all  track  and  other  facilities 
and  conditions  remain  the  same,  it  seems  to  me  just  a question 
of  how  often  the  electric  locomotive  could  deliver  the  goods  at 
the  other  end  of  the  line  without  delay  or  failure  as  compared 
with  what  the  steam  locomotive  now  does. 

If  the  electric  locomotive  can  be  made  to  run  1,000  miles 
without  change  and  will  never  fail  or  break  down  or  its  power 
become  diminished  as  often  as  the  steam  locomotive,  the  Dis- 
patcher might  accomplish  a great  deal  even  with  present  cars, 
track  facilities,  etc.,  but  there  is  more  involved  than  merely  re- 
placing a Mikado  or  Mallet  locomotive  with  an  electric  locomotive 
of  equal  capacity. 


54 


A 60,000  lbs.  weight  per  axle  and  the  possibility  of  adopt- 
ing higher  loads  for  electric  locomotives  on  account  of  the 
absence  of  unbalanced  forces  is  referred  to.  I wish  to  mention 
that  the  rail  and  wheel  wear  are  also  important  factors  which 
must  be  considered  in  increasing  wheel  loads. 

It  is  stated  that  there  is  no  need  of  the  back  shop  for 
electric  locomotives  unless  turning  tires  or  painting  may  be  con- 
sidered heavy  repairs.  I am  sure  that  shops  (whether  they  call 
them  back  shops  or  some  other  name)  will  be  required.  Electric 
locomotives  must  be  heavy  and  drop  pits,  cranes  and  other  shop 
facilities  will  be  required  even  for  running  repairs.  The  quick 
substitution  of  repair  parts  always  in  stock  and  ready  to  apply 
would  be  an  advantage,  but  no  one  can  tell  how  many  different 
kinds  of  parts  would  be  required  for  the  different  kinds  and 
types  of  electric  locomotives  which  would  exist  after  15  or ’20 
years  of  electric  operation,  involving  thousands  of  locomotives. 
Furthermore,  the  spare  parts  or  repairs  would  have  to  be  made 
in  shops  maintained  by  the  Railroad  Companies  or  by  outside 
concerns. 

A comparison  is  made  of  maintenance  costs  of  the  electric 
vs.  steam  locomotive  amounting  to  60c  per  mile  for  a steam 
Mallet,  as  compared  with  14.65c  for  the  C.M.  & St.  P.  electric. 
In  checking  up  some  cost  figures  on  a N.Y.C.  division  which  uses 
Mallets  for  most  of  its  heavy  freight  trains,  the  cost  of  repairs 
in  the  years  1918  and  1919  amounted  to  from  21c  to  25c  per 
mile.  These  figures,  of  course,  included  some  simple  locomotives 
in  operation  of  the  same  division.  I was  able  to  obtain  some 
further  figures  covering  back  shop  repairs  of  Mallet  locomotives 
on  two  different  divisions  for  the  year  1919,  averaging  approx- 
imately from  12c  to  19c  per  mile.  The  engine-house  mainten- 
ance cost  is  not  readily  available,  but  it  is  fair  to  assume  that 
it  could  not  be  more  than  the  shop  cost  per  mile.  Therefore,  the 
total  cost  for  the  Mallet  locomotive,  including  shop  and  engine- 
house  repairs,  would  be  from  24c  to  37c  per  mile,  or  considerably 
less  than  60c.  No  information  is  given  showing  just  what  items 
were  taken  into  account  either  for  the  steam  or  electric  loco- 
motives in  figuring  the  cost  per  mile,  and  any  such  statement 
cannot  be  fairly  compared  unless  all  items  taken  into  account 
are  shown. 

It  has  been  stated  that  electric  locomotives  cost  possibly 
50%  more  than  steam  for  equal  driver  weight,  etc.  In  1917,  five 
modern  4-8-2  type  freight  locomotives  cost  about  $205,000.  I 
understand  that  one  C.M.  & St.  P.  electric  locomotive  cost  about 
the  same  amount.  The  five  steam  locomotives  had  a total 
maximum  tractive  effort  of  about  250,000,  whereas  the  one 
electric  had  only  115,000  maximum  tractive  effort.  Assuming 
that  the  one  electric  could  do  the  work  of  two  steam  locomotives, 
its  cost  would  be  equivalent  to  five  steam  locomotives. 

I believe  Mr.  Shepard  has  correctly  stated  that  the  electric 
locomotive  in  its  present  service  should  be  taken  only  as  indica- 
tive of  what  may  be  accomplished  in  the  future — in  fact,  he 

55 


admits  it  is  only  a beginner.  Mr.  Shepard  has  suggested  that 
the  solution  of  the  railroad  problem  lies  to  a large  extent  in 
railroad  electrification.  This  may  be  true,  but  undoubtedly  the 
solution  lies  in  obtaining  the  money  to  build — more  than  the 
electrification  or  any  other  factor. 

He  also  suggested  that  with  the  present  standards  of  train 
make-up,  classification  and  terminal  handling,  the  electrification 
would  double  the  capacity  of  any  railroad,  and  as  methods  are 
improved,  this  capacity  should  be  doubled  again,  thus  securing 
four  times  the  present  capacity.  I am  sure  that  the  electrifica- 
tion part  of  the  solution  is  only  one  factor  and  perhaps  not  the 
greatest  one  involved  in  accomplishing  what  Mr.  Shepard  sees 
in  the  future. 

It  is  stated  that  with  the  electric  operation,  it  should  easily 
be  practical  to  greatly  increase  the  speed  of  freight  trains  al- 
most to  that  of  superior  trains,  such  as  Passenger.  This  un- 
doubtedly means  that  improvements  in  freight  cars  and  freight 
car  design  must  be  made  before  passenger  train  speeds  can  be 
safely  improved. 

I wonder  if  any  wrecking  outfit  or  relief  train  problems 
have  been  solved  for  the  electric  railroad.  In  case  of  a serious 
wreck  where  trolley  lines  or  third  rails  were  torn  up,  a section 
of  the  track  would  be  out  of  commission  and  power  units  which 
could  operate  independently  of  the  trolley  or  third  rail  would 
have  to  be  provided.  Several  trains  might  be  turned  in  the 
zone  which  could  not  move  under  their  own  power.  Undoubt- 
edly, it  will  be  said  that  in  due  course,  all  of  these  problems  can 
be  worked  out  under  the  electrification  scheme,  but  whatever 
they  are,  it  will  cost  money  which  will  have  to  be  charged  to 
the  operation  of  the  electric  railroad. 

Mr.  Armstrong’s  paper  contains  a statement  indicating 
that  the  Mikado  locomotive  burns  158  lbs.  of  coal  per  1,000  ton 
miles.  Some  recent  figures  on  one  of  the  N.Y.C.  principal  main 
line  divisions  show  a fuel  consumption  varying  from  125  lbs.  to 
130  lbs.  of  coal  pe**  1,000  gross  ton  mile  in  freight  service.  In 
passenger  service,  the  figures  show  from  12  lbs.  to  17  lbs.  of  coal 
per  passenger  car  mile.  The  figures  for  the  freight  train  fuel 
consumption  are  therefore  about  from  28  lbs.  to  30  lbs.  less  than 
those  used  by  Mr.  Armstrong  in  comparing  the  Mikado  locomo- 
tive with  an  electric. 


Editorial  in  the  October  28,  1920,  issue  of  Engineering  News- 

Record. 

Steam  Railroad  Electrification 

Discussion  last  week  at  the  joint  meeting  in  New  York  of 
sections  of  the  national  societies  of  mechanical  and  electrical 
engineers  brought  out  several  striking  aspects  of  the  present 
status  of  steam  railroad  electrification.  The  three  principal 

56 


papers,  extracts  from  which  appear  elsewhere  in  this  issue,  and 
the  discussion  that  followed.  While  the  advocates  of  electrifica- 
tion made  a strong  case  out  of  the  probable  failure  of  the  steam 
locomotive  to  keep  pace  with  growing  demands  for  sustained 
high  tractive  effort  at  greater  speeds  on  dense  traffic  zones,  few 
engineers  will  be  ready  to  relegate  the  steam  locomotive  to  the 
scrap  heap. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  large  capital  outlay,  and 
the  problem  of  disposing  of  steam  equipment,  with  all  its  acces- 
sories, are  the  strongest  barriers  against  electrification  in  the 
present  state  of  the  art.  To  offset  these  are  operating  economies 
and  increases  in  traffic  capacity  from  electric  operation.  As 
one  authority  has  stated  the  case,  “It  seems  to  be  a race  between 
the  cost  of  fuel  and  the  cost  of  electric  equipment” — which  is 
particularly  pertinent  where  an  economical  water  power  is 
available. 

Possibilities  for  further  development  of  steam-locomotive 
capacity  and  efficiency  cannot  be  overlooked  since  their  influence 
is  to  defer  the  time  when  it  may  be  necessary  to  scrap  existing 
steam  accessories — including  most  of  the  elements  of  present 
engine  terminals. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Mallet  locomotive  has  postponed 
electrification  for  fifteen  years. 

Other  radical  departures  in  steam-locomotive  practice,  look- 
ing to  considerably  increased  range  and  efficiency  without 
exceeding  limitations  of  clearance  and  wheel  loading,  have  been 
proposed,  and  were  commented  upon  editorially  in  Engineering 
News-Record  of  Dec.  11-18,  1919,  p.  975. 

New  emphasis  has  been  laid  on  the  lack  of  available  compre- 
hensive cost  data  in  present  comparisons  of  actual  operation, 
taking  into  account  the  almost  innumerable  factors  that  must 
enter.  While  it  may  require  years  of  further  practice  to  estab- 
lish such  complete  data,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  much 
information  based  on  actual  experience  to  date  does  exist,  but 
has  not  been  made  generally  available.  If  this  is  the  case  it 
is  to  be  greatly  regretted. 

The  ultimate  test  must  be  whether  the  balance  sheet,  over 
a sufficient  period  of  time,  shows  red  or  black  at  the  foot  of  the 
column,  regardless  of  operating  luxuries,  but  taking  into  account 
all  capital  costs : 

The  investor  must  be  satisfied.  For  example,  double  track- 
ing must  frequently  be  resorted  to,  even  though  electrification 
would  accomplish  the  same  object  as  a temporary  expedient. 

Studies  that  have  been  made  for  electrifying  certain  west- 
ern mountain  grades  did  not  enter  to  any  extent  into  the  meeting, 
last  week,  but  throughout  the  discussion  there  was  recalled 
the  principal  points  of  those  studies  upon  which  agree- 
ment has  been  most  difficult  and  upon  almost  any  one  of  which 
the  decision  might  hinge.  Broadly,  these  include  the  questions : 

What  is  the  highest  practicable  load  factor  than  can  be 
attained  ? 


57 


What  will  be  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  all  electrical  equip- 
ment and  of  track  as  compared  to  steam  operation? 

On  what  basis  will  existing  steam  equipment  be  disposed  of 
and  written  off? 

Shall  electric  power  be  purchased  or  produced  by  the  rail- 
road and  what  will  be  the  cost  of  current  per  kilowatt-hour? 

What  are  the  practicable  limits  of  multiple-unit  electric- 
locomotive  operation  for  the  purpose  of  hauling  heavier  trains  at 
higher  speeds  without  increased  crews? 

How  many  electric  locomotives  will  be  required  to  replace 
a given  tonnage  of  steam  locomotives? 

In  each  one  of  these  questions — and  there  are  many  others 
of  great  importance — there  has  been  much  disagreement.  In 
a study  for  electrifying  a mountain  grade  of  a western  line,  one 
estimate  showed  a net  return  on  net  investment  of  only  one- 
seventh  of  that  indicated  by  another  estimate  for  the  same  area, 
and  not  enough  by  half  to  justify  electrification.  The  discrep- 
ancy was  largely  accounted  for  by  wide  disagreement  in  answers 
to  the  questions  enumerated.  With  the  present  lack  of  available 
cost  data  from  actual  operation,  conjecture,  even  though  judi- 
cious. is  necessarily  an  all  too  potent  factor. 

We  heartily  endorse  the  statement  of  Mr.  Muhlfeld  last 
week  that  further  electrification  studies  should  be  made  without 
prejudice  and  by  joint  committees  composed  of  civil,  mechanical 
and  electrical  engineers,  and  also  representatives  of  the  trans- 
portation and  accounting  departments. 

The  greatest  credit  should  be  accorded  those  who  have  de- 
veloped heavy  electric  traction  to  its  already  remarkable  state. 

Steam  railroad  electrification  can  be  expected  to  make 
important  gains  in  the  next  decade,  but  first  of  all  in  such  spe- 
cial cases  as  tunnels,  busy  city  terminals,'  suburban  traffic,  moun- 
tain trades  and  dense  traffic  zones. 

For  the  present  and  for  some  time  to  come  the  steam  loco- 
motive will  hold  its  own  for  general  service. 


Editorial  in  the  October  29,  1920,  issue  of  Railway  Age 

Relative  Advantages  of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric 

Locomotives 

Elsewhere  in  this  issue  will  be  found  a report  of  the  joint 
meeting  on  November  22  of  the  New  York  sections  of  the  Amer- 
ican Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  and  the  American  Insti- 
tute of  Electrical  Engineers  and  the  Railroad  Section  of  the 
A.  S.  M.  E.  The  subject  considered  was  “The  Relative  Advan- 
tages of  Modern  Steam  and  Electric  Locomotives.”  The  meet- 
ing was  addressed  by  advocates  of  both  steam  and  electric  trac- 
tion and  its  importance  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  two  sides 

58 


appeared  in  what  was  practically  a joint  debate  on  the  subject 
of  steam  railroad  electrification.  We  fear  that  most  of  the 
large  audience  in  attendance  went  away  with  the  same  opinions 
with  which  they  came.  The  difficulty  was  that  there  was  such  a 
great  bulk  of  material  presented  that  it  was  impossible  to 
assimilate  it. 

The  majority  of  the  papers  were  presented  by  ardent  advo- 
cates of  steam  or  electric  traction  who  gave  little  or  no  considera- 
tion to  the  point  of  view  of  the  other  side.  It  is  most  unfortu- 
nate that  a meeting  so  well  launched  did  not  result  in  the 
crystallizing  of  some  of  the  vast  amount  of  high  grade  data 
available.  Here  was  an  occasion  in  which  the  advocates  of  elec- 
trification found  themselves  on  the  same  side  of  the  fence  and 
yet  so  much  did  they  adhere  to  generalities  and  lay  themselves 
open  to  criticism  that  they  failed  entirely  to  gain  their  point. 
They  were  fortunate,  however,  in  that  the  advocates  of  steam 
operation  did  not  take  advantage  of  this  fact  or  themselves  take 
care  to  avoid  the  same  faults.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the 
discussion  of  electrification  should  be  carried  on  in  this  way. 

A perusal  of  the  papers  will  bear  out  this  conclusion.  The 
electrification  advocates  were  again  guilty  of  making  unfair 
comparisons.  Thus  one  of  the  speakers  did  not  hesitate  to  com- 
pare the  operation  of  modern  electrical  equipment  on  the  Chi- 
cago, Milwaukee  & St.  Paul  with  the  results  that  were  obtained 
many  years  ago  on  that  road  with  Prairie  type  locomotives. 
He  did  admit,  however,  that  this  was  not  an  absolutely  fair 
comparison  and  said  that  operation  with  modern  Mikado  loco- 
motives might  show  different  results.  On  the  other  hand,  one 
of  the  advocates  of  steam  operation  was  unkind  enough  to  com- 
pare the  trpin  loading  on  the  Virginian  Railway  with  that  on 
the  electrically  operated  divisions  of  the  St.  Paul.  He  did  not 
draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Virginian  carries  bituminous 
coal  almost  exclusively  whereas  the  St.  Paul’s  traffic  is  of  a 
very  miscellaneous  character  not  conducive  to  heavy  train  load- 
ing. These  are  only  two  examples  of  many  such  that  might  be 
mentioned. 

Apparently  the  advocates  of  electrification  do  not  yet  realize 
how  greatly  the  efficiency  of  the  modern  steam  locomotive  has 
been  improved  in  recent  years.  Some  may  refer  to  the  railroads’ 
conservatism.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  those  who  make  that 
statement,  for  the  rapidity  of  the  replacement  of  wooden  by 
steel  cars,  the  enlargement  in  the  capacity  of  all  kinds  of  cars 
and  locomotives,  the  introduction  of  automatic  block  signaling, 
etc.,  are  certainly  not  signs  of  conservatism. 

The  electrification  advocates  apparently  do  not  realize  the 
nature  of  the  sales  problem  before  them.  They  have  long  since 
sold  electrical  engineers  in  all  lines  of  industry.  At  present  they 
are  trying  to  sell  the  general  public.  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  the  real  buyers  in  this  sales  campaign  are  the  railroads. 
The  present  task  of  the  advocates  of  steam  railroad  electrifica- 
tion may  properly  be  said  therefore  to  be  the  selling  of  their 

59 


idea  to  the  hard-headed  railroad  executives  and  operating  men. 
These  men  were  brought  up  and  educated  under  steam  opera- 
tion. They  are,  however,  open-minded  to  the  value  of  electrifica- 
tion and  ready  to  spend  large  sums  of  money,  if  it  is  available, 
and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  such  expenditure  will  result  in  suffi- 
ciently lower  operating  costs  to  make  such  expenditures  advis- 
able. The  advocates  of  electrification,  in  their  presentation, 
made  little,  if  any,  progress  in  this  direction;  indeed  neither 
side  showed  a real  appreciation  of  the  necessity  of  basing  its 
argument  on  simple,  sound  economics. 


November  1,  1920. 


To  the  Editor,  Railway  Age, 

Woolworth  Building,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir: 

Referring  to  your  editorial  on  the  “Relative  Advantages  of 
Modern  Steam  and  Electric  Locomotives”  on  page  732  of  the 
October  29,  1920,  issue. 

“On  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  advocates  of  steam 
operation  was  unkind  enough  to  compare  the  train  loading 
on  the  Virginian  Railway  with  that  on  the  electrically  oper- 
ated divisions  of  the  St.  Paul.  He  did  not  draw  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Virginian  carries  bituminous  coal  almost 
exclusively,  whereas  the  St.  Paul’s  traffic  is  of  a very  mis- 
cellaneous character  not  conducive  to  heavy  train  loading. 
These  are  only  two  examples  of  many  such  that  might  be 
mentioned.” 

As  I was  apparently  the  only  advocate  of  steam  operation 
who  referred  to  the  Virginian  at  the  Joint  Meeting  in  question,  I 
quote  from  my  address  as  presented,  as  follows: 

“Electrification  was  established  on  the  St.  Paul  during 
December,  1915,  and  the  following  comparisons  with  the 
Virginian,  as  to  annual  operating  results  obtained,  are  of 
interest  and  from  which  it  would  appear  that  the  St.  Paul 
electrification  has  produced  no  benefit,  and  that  the  Virgin- 
ian steam  operation  is  a very  satisfactory  one,  so  far  as  the 
public  and  the  stock  owners  are  concerned: 

60 


1 

Year 

1919 

1918 

1917 

1916 

1915 

1914 

1913 

1912 

1911 

1910 

Average  Freight 

| 

Train  Load 

\ 554 

536 

468 

425 

390 

380 

357 

288 

275 

276 

(Tons)- 

J 

Average  Rate 

St.  Paul 

Received  per 

Freight  Ton  Mile 

1 .92 

.84 

.76 

.76 

.78 

.81 

.79 

.84 

.84 

.84 

(Cents) 

J 

Operating  Ratio — 
Per  cent  Operating 
Expenses  to  Gross 

92.15 

92.0 

74.9 

65.5 

67.8 

67.0 

66.8 

75.6 

72.4 

69.1 

Operating  Revenue 

1 

Average  Freight 

1 

Train  Load 

1712 

1483 

1508 

1578 

1469 

1410 

1111 

1049 

1132 

809 

(Tons) 

1 

Average  Rate 

1 

Virginian  < 

Received  per 

Freight  Ton  Mile 

.49 

.42 

.36 

.34 

.34 

.34 

.34 

.35 

.36 

,4c 

(Cents) 

| 

Operating  Ratio — 
Per  cent  Operating 
Expenses  to  Gross 

76.0 

77.9 

57.7 

52.0 

58.0 

55.0 

57.7 

61.4 

59.3 

69.5 

Operating  Revenue 

Certainly  the  comparison  of  the  St.  Paul  and  Virginian 
co-ordinated  average  freight  train  loadings,  rates  received  per 
freight  ton  mile,  and  operating  ratios  does  not  justify  any  such 
editorial  comment  as  given  by  you;  and  at  any  rate,  you  were 
not  privileged  to  claim  that  I confined  my  comparison  to  one, 
rather  than  to  a combination  of  the  three  essential -factors. 

Your  editorial  concludes  with  the  following:  “Neither  side 
(referring  to  the  advocates  of  electrification  and  steam  opera- 
tion) showed  a real  appreciation  of  the  necessity  of  basing  its 
argument  on  simple,  sound  economics,”  to  which  I must  take 
decided  exception,  and  beg  to  reiterate  statements  as  set  forth 
in  my  address  as  presented: 

“What  the  stock  owners  and  heads  of  railroads  generally 
desire  is  to  originate  and  move  the  greatest  amount  of  busi- 
ness possible  with  the  least  cost  to  Capital  and  Operating  Ac- 
counts.” 

“The  locomotive  problem  must  be  attacked  from  a combined 
Transportation  and  Motive  Power,  and  not  from  an  Electrical 
or  Mechanical  Engineer’s  viewpoint.  There  are  sufficient  loco- 
motives of  all  kinds  now  under  construction  and  in  service  on 
American  railroads  to  give  correct  data  as  to  what  can  be  accom- 
plished under  varying  conditions  by  either  the  electric  or  steam 
method  of  developing  tractive  power,  and  if  unwhitewashed 
reports  of  their  performance  can  be  obtained  it  will  be  of  inval- 
uable assistance  to  electrical  and  mechanical  engineers  generally 
in  meeting  the  present  and  future  motive  power  requirements.” 

61 


“A  steam  locomotive  in  one  section  can  be  designed  and 
placed  under  the  control  of  one  engineer  and  one  fireman  which 
will  economically  develop  as  much  tractive  power  as  may  be  nec- 
essary to  haul  the  greatest  amount  of  tonnage  that  can  be  con- 
centrated in  one  train  of  suitable  size  for  safe  and  quick  han- 
dling over  a division.” 

“The  advantage  of  the  electric  locomotive  for  the  handling 
of  heavy  tonnage  would  be  from  increasing  the  capacity  of  the 
line,  and  it  might  be  that  the  greater  business  handled  would 
justify  the  increased  cost  for  installation  and  operation  of  elec- 
tric locomotives  as  compared  with  steam  locomotives.” 

“The  New  York  Tribune  has  recently  published  a series  of 
articles  by  Railroad  Chairman  and  Presidents,  on  problems  con- 
fronting the  Carriers  as  regards  adequate  transportation  facili- 
ties for  the  future,  in  which  no  reference  was  made  to  the  neces- 
sity for  any  steam  road  electrification.  Mr.  Julius  Kruttschnitt 
referred  to  the  substitution  of  heavier  modern  for  light  obsolete 
locomotives,  the  elimination  of  every  pound  of  unnecessary  dead 
weight  without  sacrifice  of  strength  or  safety,  and  the  conserva- 
tion of  fuel  by  the  application  of  improvements  and  the  educa- 
tion of  employees.  Mr.  A.  H.  Smith  referred  to  an  electrifica- 
tion project  for  a city  that  would  cost  $60,000,000,  but  which 
would  produce  no  revenue  whatsoever.  As  Mr.  Smith  has  had 
experience  with  electrification  he  ought  to  know.  Mr.  F.  D. 
Underwood  said  that  The  average  man  does  not  realize  what 
a wonderful  machine  the  steam  locomotive  is’;  That  the  capital 
expenditures  involved  in  changing  from  steam  to  electric  opera- 
tion are  enormous/  and  that  ‘but  for  the  notable  improvements 
in  steam  locomotives  which  have  enabled  the  roads  to  offset 
increased  costs,  they  would  have  all  been  bankrupt.” 

“In  line  with  the  foregoing,  Mr.  J.  J.  Hill,  a few  years  before 
his  death  stated  that  the  Mallet  type  of  steam  locomotive  had 
set  back  the  time  for  electrification  at  least  fifteen  years,  and 
Mr.  L.  F.  Loree,  who  made  the  Mallet  type  of  locomotive  in  the 
United  States  an  established  fact  and  who  has  done  as  much  as, 
if  not  more  than,  any  other  railroad  executive  to  increase  loco- 
motive and  freight  car  capacities  and  efficiencies  has  as  yet  been 
unable  to  determine  upon  any  steam  road  divisional  electrifica- 
tion scheme  in  any  part  of  the  country  that  is  justified  as  com- 
pared with  steam  operation.” 

“We  all  know  that  the  foregoing  named  executives  and  rail- 
roads are  representative  of  broad  gauge  policies  and  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  make  improvements — when  money  can  be  pro- 
cured— provided  the  expenditures  will  produce  a proper  rate  of 
return  in  operating  efficiency  and  economy  in  addition  to  the 
carrying  charges.”  • 

“From  1903  to  1917  every  mountain  pass  controlled  by  the 
Harriman  lines — and  two  that  were  studied  in  reconnoissance — 
were  investigated  for  electrification  but  in  no  case  did  the  operat- 
ing results  justify  the  same  as  compared  with  steam  operation.” 


62 


“In  the  1913  transactions  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Electrical  Engineers,  pages  1845-1875,  a paper  on  the  subject 
of  'Mountain  Railway  Electrification/  by  Mr.  Allen  H.  Babcock, 
Electrical  Engineer  of  the  Southern  Pacific,  which  related  to  the 
proposed  electrification  of  a district  of  that  line  which  included 
38  miles  of  2.4  per  cent  ruling  grade  between  Bakersfield  and 
Mojave,  California,  was  published  in  full  detail,  and  further 
the  paper  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  engineers  of  two  large 
electric  locomotive  manufacturers  in  this  country  with  instruc- 
tions to  ‘tear  it  to  pieces.'  With  one  exception,  and  which  was 
a criticism  directed  to  the  point  of  view  taken,  rather  than  to 
the  facts,  by  Mr.  H.  M.  Hobart,  of  the  General  Electric  Company 
(pages  1256-1260  in  the  transactions  referred  to)  no  criticism 
was  made  of  Mr.  Babcock's  conclusion — which  was  that  electri- 
fication was  not  justified." 

“Similarly,  in  a report  made  in  January,  1914,  by  Mr.  J.  P. 
Ripley,  of  the  J.  G.  White  Management  Corporation,  on  the 
possibilities  from  the  electrification  of  23  miles  of  double  track 
line  of  the  Santa  Fe  between  Trinidad,  Colo.,  and  Raton,  New 
Mexico,  covering  ruling  grades  of  from  3.32  to  3.5  percent  and 
10  degree  curvature,  over  Raton  Mountain  summit,  and  at  which 
time  both  the  use  of  coke  oven  gas  at  2 cents  per  1,000  cubic  feet 
delivered  at  the  railway's  power  plant,  and  of  purchased  power 
were  considered,  electrification  was  not  justified  due  to  the  rela- 
tively small  average  amount  of  traffic  as  compared  with  the 
tonnage  to  be  moved  at  periods  of  great  traffic  density  and  on 
account  of  the  savings  in  operation  not  even  equalling  the  fixed 
charge  brought  about  by  electrification." 

“In  line  with  the  foregoing,  several  years  ago  a report  was 
made  on  the  advisability  of  electrifying  about  275  miles,  or  a 
division,  of  one  of  the  more  prominent  western  lines,  and  an 
erroneous  comparison  was  made,  first,  between  the  existing  anti- 
quated and  uneconomical  steam  and  an  up-to-date  electric  opera- 
tion ; and  second,  by  omitting  the  investment  required  to  bring 
the  steam  operation  up  to  date.  When  all  involved  factors  were 
properly  adjusted  the  net  capital  expenditure  of  $4,000,000  re- 
quired for  electrification  compared  with  $1 ,000,000  as  needed  for 
modernizing  the  steam  equipment,  and  the  estimated  annual 
operating  saving  of  approximately  $750,000  from  electrification 
was  wiped  out  and  replaced  by  a saving  of  $250,000  from  a 
continuation  of  the  improved  steam  operation." 

“The  foregoing  are  only  a few  cases  where  steam  railway 
electrification  projects  that  were  thought  to  be  entirely  feasible, 
were,  upon  serious  investigation,  found  not  to  be  justified  and 
indicate  the  caution  that  must  be  exercised  in  analyzing  steam 
railroad  motive  power  and  transportation  problems." 

“To  reflect  initial  and  operating  costs  from  a credit  or  an 
investment  standpoint  and  to  interpret  faithfully  on  the  basis  of 
expert  judgment  backed  by  practical  experience,  the  probable 
effect  on  the  annual  balance  sheet,  any  investigation  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  upon  the  advisability  of  electrical  or 

63 


steam  operation  for  an  existing  or  new  line  of  railroad  should 
be  made,  preferably  by  a Committee  consisting  of  experts  in 
railway  mechanical,  electrical  and  civil  engineering,  transporta- 
tion, and  accounting,  without  an  endeavor  to  modify  the  best 
steam  railroading  methods  to  suit  the  requirements  of  electric 
traction,  and  by  keeping  clearly  in  mind  the  fundamental  fact 
that,  while  anything  within  reason  is  possible,  provided  enough 
money  can  be  spent,  if  the  Auditor’s  annual  statement  cannot 
show  the  balance  on  the  right  side  of  the  ledger  the  project 
will  have  failed  from  the  most  important  point  of  view.” 

“While  there  is  much  existing  steam  road  trackage  that  can 
and  should  receive  first  consideration  as  regards  electrification 
for  the  purpose  of  eliminating  gases  from  underground  ter- 
minals and  tunnels,  to  give  relief  to  terminal  or  line  traffic 
congestion  by  combined  rapidity  and  frequency  of  train  move- 
ment in  the  vicinity  of  large  commercial  and  industrial  centers, 
or  where  transportation  operations  are  auxiliary  to  mining  or 
other  industries  requiring  the  extensive  use  of  electricity,  it 
would  be  financial  suicide  to  electrify  immediately  adjacent  con- 
necting and  intermediate  long  haul  mileage,  particularly  in  view 
of  the  improvements  that  can  be  made  in  both  existing  and 
new  steam  locomotives  in  the  matter  of  reducing  smoke,  sparks, 
cinders  and  noise  and  in  increasing  general  capacity,  efficiency 
and  economy  in  operation  and  maintenance.” 

“In  view  of  past  experience  probably  little  if  any  financing 
of  steam  road  electrification  projects  in  the  United  States  can 
be  undertaken,  particularly  at  present  interest  on  money  and 
labor  and  material  prices,  unless  the  returns  are  more  adequately 
and  fully  guaranteed.  In  fact,  few  if  any  existing  steam  roads 
can  justify  or  stand  the  additional  capital  investment  required 
per  mile  of  road  for  electrification,  except  for  short  distances 
under  very  special  conditions  such  as  prevailed  on  the  Norfolk 
and  Western,  where  the  ventilation  and  1.5  per  cent  grade  line 
features  of  a five-eighths  mile  single  track  tunnel  restricted  the 
train  movements  to  a 6 mile  per  hour  basis  on  a congested 
traffic  section  of  the  main  line,  and  even  then  only  providing  the 
fixed  charges  and  operating  expenses  are  not  too  excessive.” 

Apparently  you  did  not  hear  or  have  before  you  the  fore- 
going portion  of  my  address  when  you  prepared  your  editorial, 
and  I am  very  glad  to  bring  the  same  to  your  attention  in 
order  that  you  may  know  that  there  was  a full  appreciation  of 
the  necessity  for  basing  the  arguments  in  favor  of  steam  opera- 
tion on  “simple,  sound  economics” — by  referring  to  the  facts 
as  developed  during  the  past  fifteen  years  through  the  financial 
and  operating  results  and  the  careful  investigations  as  made  by, 
various  representative  railroads  and  high-class  railroad  execu- 
tives. 

In  this  connection  wish  to  refer  to  the  erroneous  process 
followed  in  your  abstracting  of  my  address  by  merely  referring 
to  the  omissions — which  are  bracketed — in  the  first  paragraph  of 
such  abstract. 


64 


“Today,  in  consideration  of  the  existing  (traffic)  rates  and 
regulations  as  established  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, (and  the  wages  and  working  conditions  as  recommended 
by  the  Railroad  Labor  Board,  it  is  assumed  that  the  railroads 
as  a whole  will  average  net  operating  earnings  equal  to  6 per 
cent  on  their  valuation  as  fixed  from  time  to  time  by  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission.  Some  railroads  may  earn  more 
and  some  will  earn  less,  but  in  the  case  of  every  line)  the 
minimum  fixed  charge  and  the  maximum  operating  and  mainte- 
nance economy  will  be  required  if  the  stock  owners  are  to  receive 
even  a reasonable  return  on  their  investment.” 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  a representative  paper  associated 
with  the  technical  press  is  not  more  careful  in  its  reviews  and 
abstracts  of  economic  papers,  in  order  that  statements  as  set 
forth  to  the  public  interested  will  conform  more  nearly  to  the 
facts,  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  I am  bringing  this  particular 
case  to  your  attention. 

Yours  very  truly, 

J.  E.  Muhlfeld. 


65 


